Error and/or relief
We remand to the trial court with directions to clarify its section 654 findings for count 3 (false imprisonment). If the trial court clarifies on remand that section 654 applies, we direct it to modify the judgment to stay the sentence for count 3 and amend the abstract of judgment accordingly. We also direct the court to correct the determination of credit for time served.
First Holding:
Section 654’s applicability is reviewable on appeal even if, as here, the issue was not raised with the trial court.
Authority:
People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354, fn. 17
Second Holding:
Section 654(a) protects against multiple punishment where the crimes arise from either (1) the same act or omission or (2) an indivisible course of conduct united by a single intent and objective. In the absence of any reference to PC 654 during sentencing, the fact that the court did not stay the sentence on any count is generally deemed to reflect an implicit determination that each crime had a separate objective subject to substantial evidence review.
Authority:
People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 335
People v. Tarris (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 612, 626
Third Holding:
The court made comments suggesting a section 654 stay applied to the false imprisonment term at the original sentencing but was silent on the matter at resentencing. The trial court originally sentenced the defendant to a total prison term of more than 20 years. At the sentencing hearing, the court said it would impose and stay the middle-term sentence for count 3 (false imprisonment) primarily based on the fact that all of these facts are essentially running together, that there was some overlap with the other counts, as it viewed the false imprisonment as being somewhat encapsulated in the rape, witness intimidation, and domestic violence.
A few months later, the court recalled the sentence, believing the defendant had been given too harsh a sentence, and resentenced the defendant to nearly five years less. At that resentencing hearing, there was no mention of the applicability of section 654. In light of the uncertainty regarding what the trial court intended regarding a finding under section 654, it appears appropriate under these circumstances to remand the matter to permit the trial court to clarify.
Authority:
People v. Garcia (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 834, 839
Fourth Holding:
The defendant is entitled to one day additional credit, because the correct calculation must include the date of arrest. Further, it is the trial court’s responsibility to calculate all credit for time served through the date of the resentencing, and the duty cannot be delegated to the custodial facility personnel.
Authority:
eople v. Kennedy (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 385, 394
People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 29