Error and/or relief
The evidence showed the defendant possessed the firearm on each of the dates alleged in the information, but there was no evidence his possession of the firearm was anything but continuous over this period of time. One of the two counts must be stayed.
First Holding:
Section 654 precludes multiple punishments for a single act or indivisible course of conduct. Whether a course of criminal conduct is divisible and therefore gives rise to more than one act within the meaning of section 654 depends on the intent and objective of the actor. 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. Intent and objective are factual questions for the trial court, which must find evidence to support the existence of a separate intent and objective for each sentenced offense.
Authority:
People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal. 4th 290, 294
People v. Jackson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 269, 354
Second Holding:
A trial court’s express or implied determination that two crimes were separate, involving separate objectives, must be upheld on appeal if supported by substantial evidence. The trial court has broad latitude in determining whether section 654(a) applies in a given case. Under this standard, this court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s finding and presume the existence of every fact the court could reasonably deduce from the record.
Authority:
People v. Brents (2012) 53 Cal.4th 599, 618
People v. Vasquez (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 732, 737
People v. DeVaughn (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1092, 1113
Third Holding:
Though the trial court did not provide specific reasoning for its decision not to stay the sentence for felon in possession of a firearm, we review the record to determine whether there exists substantial evidence in support of the court’s finding of multiple criminal intents.
Authority:
People v. Hutchins (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1312–1313
Fourth Holding:
We conclude the sentence for one of the counts for being a felon in possession of a firearm should be stayed pursuant to section 654. That is, we find no substantial evidence to support a conclusion defendant harbored multiple criminal intents in possessing the firearm on the two charged dates. To the contrary, the evidence only supported a conclusion that the gun possessed on July 11 was the same gun used in the charged shooting on July 7. However, there was no evidence defendant’s firearm possession was anything but continuous and pursuant to a single criminal objective. The prosecution did not present evidence, for example, showing defendant relinquished possession of the gun for a period between the specified dates.
Authority:
People v. Spirlin (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 119, 129–131 [Where no evidence was presented that the defendant did not maintain constructive possession of the gun the entire time, it could be inferred he had continuous constructive possession of the gun with a singular intent to possess the weapon as a felon, and thus was a single act with a single objective]
People v. Mason (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 355, 366
Fifth Holding:
One of the sentences on the two counts should be stayed pursuant to section 654. Remand is necessary for the trial court to exercise its discretion in modifying defendant’s sentence.
Authority:
People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893 [a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate, so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances]