Error and/or relief
The trial court incorrectly imposed a consecutive subordinate term for the child abuse and a concurrent term for the false imprisonment because those counts were stayed under Penal Code section 654.
The abstract of judgment does not reflect the correct amount of the defendant’s local conduct credits. We therefore exercise our inherent authority to modify the judgment to correct these errors.
First Holding:
Section 654 generally precludes multiple punishments for a single physical act that violates different provisions of law as well as multiple punishments for an indivisible course of conduct that violates more than one criminal statute.
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.
If, on the other hand, the defendant entertained multiple criminal objectives that were independent of and not merely incidental to each other, he may be punished for independent violations committed in pursuit of each objective even though the violations shared common acts or were parts of an otherwise indivisible course of conduct.
Authority:
PEN 654
In re Raymundo M. (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 78, 94
Second Holding:
The question whether section 654 is factually applicable to a given series of offenses is for the trial court, and the law gives the trial court broad latitude in making this determination. Its findings on this question must be upheld on appeal if there is any substantial evidence to support them.
We view the evidence favorably to support the judgment and presume every factual finding that could reasonably be deduced from the evidence.
Authority:
People v. Roles (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 935, 946–947
Third Holding:
Because the court stayed counts 3 and 5 under section 654, count 3 should not be a consecutive one-third term and count 5 should not be concurrent. Remand is not necessary to correct these matters. The trial court clearly intended to impose the midterm for all counts and enhancements, and to stay execution of the sentences in counts 3 and 5 and the enhancement attached to count 5. We will therefore exercise our authority to modify the judgment to correct the unauthorized sentence.
Authority:
People v. Duff (2010) 50 Cal.4th 787, 796
People v. Cantrell (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1164
People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1473
Fourth Holding:
There were errors in the abstract of judgment, including the failure to mark that counts 3 and 5 were stayed under section 654, and reflected seven days credit for time served less than ordered by the court. We exercise our authority to correct this error as well
Authority:
People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185