Error and/or relief
The defendant was convicted of murder and conspiracy to commit that same murder. It was error to impose sentence on both counts concurrently. One of the counts should have been stayed under section 654.
First Holding:
Section 654(a) provides 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. A defendant may not receive more than one punishment for a single act, nor may a defendant receive multiple punishments for acts that comprised a single, indivisible course of conduct in service of a single objective. As a result, section 654 prohibits punishing a defendant for both conspiracy to commit murder and the underlying murder.
Authority:
PEN 654
People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 550-552
People v. Hernandez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 835, 866, disapproved of on another ground by People v. Riccardi (2012) 54 Cal.4th 758, 824, fn. 32
Second Holding:
In pronouncing the defendant’s sentence, the court did not stay the sentence on count two, which was necessary to avoid double punishment.
Authority:
People v. Caparaz (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 669, 689
Third Holding:
Where, as here, the punishment is the same for the two counts at issue, a remand is unnecessary because it would not change the defendant’s sentence. Accordingly, we will modify the judgment to stay the sentence for count two.
Authority:
People v. Bey (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 144, 167