Error and/or relief
The matter is remanded for the court to sentence the defendant on one count and stay punishment under section 654 on the two other counts.
First Holding:
Penal Code Section 654 prohibits a trial court from imposing multiple punishments when a defendant commits multiple offenses during an indivisible course of conduct directed toward a single objective.
Authority:
PEN 654
Neal v. State of California (1960) 55 Cal.2d 11, 19 [If all of the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one]
Second Holding:
An act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision.
Authority:
PEN 654
Third Holding:
The purpose of section 654 is to ensure a defendant’s punishment is commensurate with his or her culpability. That is, a jury can convict a defendant of multiple crimes arising from a single act, but a court can only punish the defendant for one of those crimes. If a court imposes concurrent sentences, then that sentence constitutes double punishment within the meaning of section 654. A course of criminal conduct is a single “act” for purposes of section 654 if all of the offenses committed during the course of conduct were incident to one objective.
Authority:
People v. Latimer (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1203, 1211
People v. Miller (1977) 18 Cal.3d 873, 887
Neal v. State of California (1960) 55 Cal.2d 11, 19
Fourth Holding:
It is defendant’s intent and objective, not the temporal proximity of his offenses, which determine whether the transaction is indivisible. If all of the offenses were merely incidental to, or were the means of accomplishing or facilitating one objective, defendant may be found to have harbored a single intent and therefore may be punished only once.
Authority:
People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 335
Fifth Holding:
When a trial court sentences a defendant to separate terms without making an express finding the defendant entertained separate objectives, the trial court is deemed to have made an implied finding each offense had a separate objective.
Authority:
People v. Islas (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 116, 129
Sixth Holding:
We review for substantial evidence a trial court’s implied finding that a defendant had separate intents and objectives for different offenses. Substantial evidence means that evidence which, when viewed in light of the entire record, is of solid probative value, maintains its credibility and inspires confidence that the ultimate fact it addresses has been justly determined.
Authority:
People v. Dowdell (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1388, 1414
People v. Lehman (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 795, 804
Seventh Holding:
Under section 654, a defendant cannot be punished for both a robbery, and a kidnapping for the purpose of that same robbery.
Authority:
People v. Beamon (1973) 8 Cal.3d 625, 639
Eighth Holding:
There is not substantial evidence to support the trial court’s implied (unstated) finding that the defendant formed (1) a separate intent and objective to commit a kidnapping for the purpose of robbery, and then (2) formed a separate intent and objective to commit a carjacking, and then (3) formed a separate intent and objective to commit a robbery of the pharmaceuticals.
Authority:
People v. Green (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1085 [there must be evidence to support a finding the defendant formed a separate intent and objective for each offense for which he was sentenced]
Ninth Holding:
On remand, the trial court is directed to impose a sentence for only one of the three convictions, and then stay the sentence on the other two crimes under section 654.
Authority:
People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1469 [to implement section 654, the trial court must impose sentence on all counts, but stay execution of sentence as necessary to prevent multiple punishment]