Error and/or relief
On resentencing under section 1172.75, it was error for the court to impose and execute sentence on a count that had been stayed under section 654 at the original sentence.
First Holding:
The law of the case doctrine precluded the trial court from reimposing the one-year sentence on count four that was stayed pursuant to section 654. Under that doctrine, when an appellate court states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal.
Authority:
People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 786
People v. Barragan (2004) 32 Cal.4th 236, 246
Second Holding:
Where the facts are undisputed, the application of section 654 raises a question of law.
Authority:
People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 312
People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 335
Third Holding:
In defendant’s initial appeal, this court determined that the sentence on count 4 should be stayed pursuant to section 654. That point is now law of the case and the trial court was therefore precluded from reimposing the one year sentence on that count. The Attorney General concedes the cause should be remanded for a full resentencing, and because that will be our disposition, we need not discuss defendant’s contention that the trial court did not account for amendments to section 654 (AB 518 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.)) when it last sentenced defendant. That contention can be presented to the trial court in the first instance.
Authority:
PEN 654