Error and/or relief
It was error for the jury to convict defendant of counts 1 and 2, which appeared to be based on the same facts. The conviction on count 2 should be stricken. Further, counts 1 and 3 were part of an indivisible course of conduct with the same intent and objective, and section 654 therefor applies. And the abstract of judgment must be amended to reflect the correct count number for one of the counts.
First Holding:
The record shows that defendant was charged with kidnapping for ransom (PC 209(a)) in count 1 and kidnapping (sec. 207(a)) in count 2. The jury acquitted him of counts 1 and 2 as charged and found him guilty of false imprisonment (sec. 237(a)) as a lesser included offense on both counts. During closing argument and again at sentencing, the prosecutor acknowledged that counts 1 and 2 were charged in the alternative and were based on the same facts. Section 954 authorizes multiple convictions for different or distinct offenses, but does not permit multiple convictions for a different statement of the same offense when it is based on the same act or course of conduct. The conviction on count 2 should be stricken.
Authority:
PEN 954
People v. Vidana (2016) 1 Cal.5th 632, 650
Second Holding:
Section 654(a) provides, in pertinent part, that 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. It precludes multiple punishments for a single act or indivisible course of conduct.The purpose of section 654 is to prevent multiple punishment for a single act or omission or indivisible course of conduct, even though that act or omission or indivisible course of conduct violates more than one statute and thus constitutes more than one crime.
Authority:
PEN 654
People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 294-295
People v. Liu (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1135
Third 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, the defendant may be found to have harbored a single intent and therefore may be punished only once. But if the defendant acts with multiple criminal objectives that are independent of, and not merely incidental to, each other, he may be punished for separate violations, even though the violations shared common acts or were part of an otherwise indivisible course of conduct. Thus, the principal inquiry in each case is whether the defendant’s criminal intent and objective were single or multiple. Each case must be determined on its own facts. The trial court has broad latitude in determining whether section 654(a) applies in a given case.
Authority:
People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 335
People v. Richardson (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 1203, 1214
People v. Liu (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1135-1136
People v. Garcia (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1550, 15
Fourth Holding:
A court’s determination, express or implied, that two crimes were separate, involving separate objectives, under section 654 is a question of fact we review for substantial evidence. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment and will affirm the court’s sentencing decision if it is supported by substantial evidence.
Authority:
People v. Richardson (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 1203, 1214
Fifth Holding:
Gratuitous violence against a helpless and unresisting victim has traditionally been viewed as not incidental to robbery for purposes of section 654. Section 654 cannot, and should not, be stretched to cover gratuitous violence or other criminal acts far beyond those reasonably necessary to accomplish the original offense.
Authority:
People v. Nguyen (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 181, 190-191
Sixth Holding:
So long as some substantial evidence to support the implied finding exists, there can be no reversal. Where the court made no express findings on the issue, a finding that the crimes were divisible is implicit in the judgment and must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence. Under this standard, the appellate court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s finding and presume the existence of every fact the trial court could reasonably deduce from the record.
Authority:
People v. Ibarra (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1070, 1083
People v. Vasquez (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 732, 737
Seventh Holding:
We note a clerical error. Generally, a clerical error is one inadvertently made. Clerical errors can be made by a clerk, by counsel, or by the court itself. A court has the inherent power to correct clerical errors in its records at any time so as to make these records reflect the true facts. The abstract of judgment for the indeterminate term lists the assault with a deadly weapon as count 5; however, the assault was count 4 and should be listed as such.
Authority:
People v. Schultz (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 804, 808
In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal.3d 702, 705