Error and/or relief
The trial court erred by imposing sentences for both counts 2 and 3 in violation of section 654.
First Holding:
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. Therefore, section 654 prohibits multiple punishment for offenses committed during a single or indivisible course of conduct.
Authority:
PEN 654
People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 294
People v. Latimer (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1203, 1207–1208
Second Holding:
Section 654 prohibits the imposition of concurrent sentences for offenses committed during a single or indivisible course of conduct. The accepted procedure for such offenses is to sentence defendant for each count and stay execution of sentence on certain counts to which section 654 is applicable.
Authority:
People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 350, 353
Third Holding:
The trial court erred by imposing punishment for both count 2 and count 3 because both offenses arose out of a single or indivisible course of conduct. Both counts 2 and 3 were committed during the defendant’s single or indivisible course of conduct of driving his car and causing injury to one victim. Therefore, section 654 prohibits punishment of the defendant for both counts. Because under amended section 654, the trial court has discretion whether to punish the defendant for either count 2 or count 3, we reverse its imposition of punishment for both counts and remand the matter for the limited purpose of resentencing him on count 2 and count 3.
Authority:
PEN 654