Error and/or relief
The court should have stayed the sentence on one of two counts (counts 1 and 5) under section 654 because the course of conduct underlying both offenses reflected a single intent and objective. Because the record clearly indicates the trial court would stay the sentence on count 5, not count 1, the opinion modifies the judgment on appeal and stays the sentence on count 5.
First Holding:
Section 654 precludes multiple punishments for a single act or indivisible course of conduct. The statutory reference to an act or omission may include not only a discrete physical act but also a course of conduct encompassing several acts pursued with a single objective. Therefore, whether a defendant may be subjected to multiple punishment[s] under section 654 requires a two-step inquiry.
First, the court considers whether the offenses were completed by a single physical act. If so, the defendant may not be punished more than once for that act. Only if the court concludes that the case involves more than a single act—i.e., a course of conduct—do we then consider whether that course of conduct reflects that the defendant harbored a single intent and objective or multiple intents and objectives.
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 harbored multiple criminal objectives, which were independent of and not merely incidental to each other, the defendant may be punished for each statutory violation committed in pursuit of each objective, even though the violations shared common acts or were parts of an otherwise indivisible course of conduct.
Even if a course of conduct is directed to one objective, we may still find that the course of conduct gives rise to multiple punishments if the acts are temporally separated in such a way as to afford the defendant the opportunity to reflect and to renew their intent before committing the next offense.
Authority:
PEN 654
People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 294
People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 311
People v. Correa (2012) 54 Cal.4th 331, 336
People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 335
People v. Gaio (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 919, 935
Second Holding:
We review a ruling on whether section 654 applies to a sentence for substantial evidence. In the absence of an explicit ruling by the trial court at sentencing, we infer that the court made the finding appropriate to the sentence it imposed, i.e., either applying section 654 or not applying it. We will uphold the trial court’s implicit or explicit section 654 finding if substantial evidence supports it.
(Gary note: The court then analyzed the facts specific to this case and determined that section 654 applied, as there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of sufficient separation of intent and objective for the two acts.)
Authority:
People v. Tom (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 250, 260
People v. Mejia (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 1036, 1045
Third Holding:
We now consider whether remand is required to allow the trial court to exercise its discretion by deciding which sentence to stay. Where a trial court erroneously fails to stay a term under Penal Code section 654, appellate courts usually remand unless remand would be futile because the record clearly indicates which sentence the court trial would stay. Given our conclusion the trial court would stay the sentence on count 5, we exercise our authority to modify the judgment on appeal and stay the term on count 5 instead of remanding the matter.
(Gary note: The court analyzed the comments made by the sentencing court and determined that the trial court clearly would have imposed and executed judgment on count 1, a felony that carried the greater sentence, and stayed execution of punishment on count 5, a misdemeanor.)
(Gary note again in the form of musings: Section 654 specifically grants the trial court to authority to choose on which of the two counts sentence is to be imposed and executed. As I have said in other summaries, prior to 1998, Penal Code section 654 had exactly the same language as it currently has, and a court was free to impose sentence on any one of the counts to which section 654 applied. See People v. Norrell (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1. In response to that Supreme Court decision, the Legislature amended section 654 to require that the court impose sentence on the count containing the longest potential term. Through AB 518, effective 1/1/2022, the Legislature restored section 654 to its former language, thus restoring to the court the discretion to choose on which count punishment should be imposed and executed.)
Authority:
PEN 1260
People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391
People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1473