Tag Archives: Single Act as multiple crimes or strikes

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Due process, Elements of crime, Pleading, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000654

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court imposed the wrong sentence for the consecutive term.

First Holding:

In one count, the defendant was convicted of second degree robbery (sec. 211). At sentencing, the trial court imposed an aggravated term of five years, which was ordered to be served consecutively at a subordinate term of one year four months. Because the robbery was a second degree felony, the middle term is three years in prison. As such, the consecutive subordinate term must be one-third the middle term, or one year. Thus, the sentence on that count must be reduced from 16 months to one year. We may correct this unauthorized sentence on appeal without remanding for a full resentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1170.1(a)

PEN 1260

People v. Lawley (2002) 27 Cal.4th 102, 171–172

Second Holding:

The defendant argues that he should have been charged with only one count of attempting to dissuade a witness rather than the 10 charged and found true. The ten calls all occurred on the same day over a span of six hours. The issue is whether appellant may be lawfully subject to multiple convictions. We review this claim de novo.

Authority:

PEN 954

People v. Duffy (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 257, 261

Third Holding:

Section 954 defines what charges can be joined in one action. This statute does not permit multiple convictions for the same offense based on the same act or course of conduct. However, section 954 authorizes multiple convictions for different or distinct offenses. As a result, a defendant may be convicted of multiple counts of the same crime, such as grand theft, based on separate and distinct criminal acts, even if the acts were all part of a single overarching scheme.

Authority:

PEN 954

People v. Vidana (2016) 1 Cal.5th 632, 650

People v. Whitmer (2014) 59 Cal.4th 733, 74

Fourth Holding:

Determining whether a defendant has committed one or more criminal acts requires identifying what the Legislature intended to punish as a single offense under the relevant statute. Courts refer to this inquiry as determining the statute’s unit of prosecution. Courts should look to the characteristics of the crime, including both (1) the factual circumstances of the defendant’s criminal conduct and (2) the elements of the crime as defined by the Legislature in the relevant statute.

Authority:

Moore v. Superior Court (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 441, 461

People v. Wilson (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 193, 199-200

People v. Whitmer (2014) 59 Cal.4th 733, 744 (conc. opn. of Liu, J.)

Fifth Holding:

Section 136.1(a)(2) makes it a crime to knowingly and maliciously attempt to prevent or dissuade a witness from attending or giving testimony at a trial, proceeding or inquiry authorized by law. In relevant part, malice is defined under this statute as an intent to thwart or interfere in any manner with the orderly administration of justice. This crime is completed upon any attempt.

Authority:

PEN 136.1

People v. Kirvin (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1507, 1519

Sixth Holding:

A trial court’s decision whether to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. A defendant bears the burden to clearly show that the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary. In the absence of such a showing, a reviewing court presumes the trial court acted to achieve legitimate sentencing objectives, and its discretionary determination to impose a particular sentence will not be set aside on appeal. Moreover, a decision will not be reversed merely because reasonable people might disagree. Instead, the decision must be so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it.

Authority:

PEN 669(a)

People v. Giminez (1975) 14 Cal.3d 68, 71–72

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 376–377

Seventh Holding:

Once a trial court lawfully decides to impose consecutive sentences on convictions for violating section 136.1, section 1170.15 applies. If a person is convicted of a felony, and of an additional felony that is a violation of section 136.1 or 137 and that was committed against the victim of, or a witness or potential witness with respect to, or a person who was about to give material information pertaining to, the first felony the Penal Code provides that those subordinate terms shall consist of the full middle term.

Authority:

PEN 1170.15

Eighth Holding:

In relevant part, the rule against the dual use of facts prohibits a trial court from relying on the same fact “to impose both the upper term and a consecutive sentence. Only a single factor in aggravation is needed to support imposition of an upper term. Likewise, only one relevant and sustainable fact may explain a series of consecutive sentences. We presume the trial court acted to achieve legitimate sentencing objectives

Authority:

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 350, fn. 12

People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 730

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 376-377

Ninth Holding:

There is a developing split of authority regarding application of the forfeiture doctrine regarding the low term presumption under section 1170(b)(6). We need not decide that issue. Although the court did not specifically mention subdivision (b)(6), we presume it knew of that provision.

Authority:

People v. Achane (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 1037, 1039, 1044 [forfeiture doctrine applied when defendant failed to raise in the trial court the presumption in favor of a lower term]

People v. Fredrickson (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 984, 994, fn. 8 [sec. 1170 mandates application of the lower term presumption and is not subject to forfeiture]People v. Caparrotta (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 874, 905

Tenth Holding:

Under the cumulative error doctrine, errors that are individually harmless may nevertheless have cumulative prejudice. A claim of cumulative error is essentially a due process challenge. The issue is whether the defendant received a fair trial. Here, appellant’s claim of cumulative prejudice is without merit because we have rejected the individual claims. After reviewing the entire record, we are confident that appellant received due process throughout the entire proceeding, including sentencing.

Authority:

In re Avena (1996) 12 Cal.4th 694, 772, fn. 32

People v. Rivas (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1436

People v. Bradford (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1005, 1057

People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 1009 [a defendant is “entitled to a fair trial but not a perfect one”]

Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case 000640

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred by staying the sentence on the vandalism and first degree residential burglary counts without first imposing a sentence, and we therefore remand to the court to impose a sentence on these counts.

First Holding:

When a court determines that a conviction falls within the meaning of section 654, it is necessary to impose sentence and to stay the execution of the duplicative sentence. The trial court is required to impose judgment on each count, which involves selecting a term, and then staying execution of the duplicative sentence, the stay to become permanent upon defendant’s service of the portion of the sentence not stayed.

This procedure ensures that the defendant will not receive a windfall of freedom from penal sanction if the conviction on which the sentence has not been stayed is overturned. Thus, it is improper to impose no sentence or to stay imposition of the sentence. Under section 654, a court’s failure to impose a sentence before staying it results in an unauthorized absence of sentence.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Mani (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 343, 380

People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1472

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Sentencing

Case 000631

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The sentence for either the attempted murder or the domestic violence should have been stayed pursuant to section 654, because both convictions were based on the same act, namely, the defendant’s act of running over the victim with his SUV.

First Holding:

This matter had previously been remanded for the court to consider its discretion on the application of section 654 as to which count should be sentenced on and which should be stayed. The original judge had retired. The resentencing judge’s statements make clear that in determining whether to stay the sentence on count 1 or count 2, he was deferring to and believed himself to be bound by the sentencing choices already made by the original sentencing court. He did not exercise his own discretion to decide which sentence should be stayed under section 654. Rather, he expressed the belief that the original sentencing judge had already made the relevant determination.

That was error. The original sentencing judge declined to apply section 654 at all, so she never exercised her discretion to decide which sentence should be stayed under section 654. To date, no judge has exercised their discretion on that issue. Because the record does not clearly indicate which sentence the resentencing judge would have stayed had he exercised his discretion, the judge’s failure to exercise his discretion is not harmless.

(GARY note #1: The court did not readdress what section 654 does. As noted, this is the second appeal in the case. The unpublished opinion in the first appeal dealt exclusively with the application of section 654, and the court likely felt it was unnecessary to repeat itself in this second appeal, because its application was not the new question. Instead, it was the failure of the resentencing judge to act independently from the original judge’s views. Under section 654, a single act, or multiple acts during a course of action with a single intent and objective, may result in conviction of multiple crimes, but may be punished under only one of them. The court may choose which count to impose and execute sentence on, and must stay execution on the other count(s) to which section 654 applies. Imposition of a concurrent term is not an option.)

(GARY note #2: The court did not discuss the significance of a trial court’s failure to exercise discretion. But there is ample authority discussing the steps for an appellate court to deal with situations where the lower court did not recognize that it had discretion and it appears that there could have been a different outcome had the judge recognized it and exercised its discretion in an informed manner. I have set out some of the statements from some such cases below as Second Holding and Third Holding, but they were not cited in this opinion, likely because, as this court stated in the unpublished opinion, no judge had ever actually exercised the discretion required under section 654. Always keep in mind, however, that when I use the term “likely” in my notes, it is pure speculation on my part.)

Authority:

PEN 654

Second Holding:

The failure to exercise discretion is an abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Bigelow (1984) 37 Cal.3d 731, 744

Dickson Carlson & Campillo v. Pole (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 436, 449

Third Holding:

Where a sentencing court was not fully aware of the scope of its discretionary powers, the appropriate remedy is to remand for resentencing unless the record clearly indicates that the court would have reached the same conclusion even it had been aware it had such discretion.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 878, fn. 16

People v. Leon (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 1003, 1026 [relief from a trial court’s misunderstanding of its sentencing discretion is available on direct appeal when such misapprehension is affirmatively demonstrated by the record]

Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case 000614

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and a felon in possession of an assault weapon. The trial court erred in sentencing defendant separately on his firearm possession convictions and remand for resentencing consistent with section 654 to stay either one of defendant’s firearm possession convictions.

First Holding:

Section 654 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. 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.

The defendant’s intent and objective are factual questions for the trial court; to permit multiple punishments, there must be evidence to support the finding the defendant formed a separate intent and objective for each offense for which he was sentenced.

Authority:

People v. Rodriguez (2009) 47 Cal.4th 501, 507,

People v. Capistrano (2014) 59 Cal.4th 830, 885, 886, overruled on other grounds in People v. Hardy (2018) 5 Cal.5th 56, 104

People v. Coleman (1989) 48 Cal.3d 112, 162

Second Holding:

These convictions arose from possession of the same weapon. Specifically, law enforcement officers found a handgun in a shoebox located in defendant’s living room, which was the basis for both firearm possession convictions. Accordingly, defendant may only be punished once for his act of possessing the handgun.

Authority:

People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 350, 357 [a single possession or carrying of a single firearm on a single occasion may be punished only once under section 654]

Abstracts and Minutes, Elements of crime, Fines and fees, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000606

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The jury found the defendant guilty of two felonies (maintaining a place for the purpose of using, selling, or giving away a controlled substance and felon in position of ammunition) and several misdemeanors (possession of cocaine, cultivating more than six marijuana plants, and possession of marijuana).

We conclude that two felony convictions must be reversed, the fee and assessment imposed for the possession of more than 28.5 grams of marijuana conviction must be reversed, either the possession of marijuana misdemeanor or the cultivating more than six marijuana plants misdemeanor must be stayed pursuant to section 654, and the four clerical errors in the judgment must be corrected.

First Holding:

When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Substantial evidence includes circumstantial evidence and any reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence.

Appellate courts presume in support of the judgment every fact that the trier of fact could reasonably deduce from the evidence. Appellate courts also properly consider erroneously admitted evidence, notwithstanding the erroneous admission. Appellate courts do not resolve credibility issues or evidentiary conflicts. A judgment will not be reversed for insufficiency of the evidence merely because the circumstances may also be reasonably reconciled with a conclusion contrary to the judgment.

Authority:

People v. Cardenas (2025) 18 Cal.5th 797, 821

People v. Brooks (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1, 57

People v. Oyler (2025) 17 Cal.5th 756, 820

People v. Jackson (2014) 58 Cal.4th 724, 749

Second Holding:

Every person who opens or maintains any place for the purpose of unlawfully selling, giving away, or using any controlled substance as identified in particular sections of the Health and Safety Code shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than one year or the state prison. Because of the disjunctive “or,” section 11366 does not require that the place be maintained for the purpose of selling; it can be violated without selling, merely by providing a place for drug abusers to gather and share their experience.

Section 11366 proscribes continuously selling, giving away, or using a controlled substance; a single or isolated instance of this forbidden conduct is insufficient. Further, section 11366 is violated by selling or giving away to others, or allowing others to use, a controlled substance in a place maintained or opened for that purpose; it is not violated by an individual’s repeated personal use of a controlled substance at his home.

Authority:

HSC 11366

People v. Franco (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 713, 716, 718

People v. Vera (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1100, 1102-1103 and fn. 2

People v. Green (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 538, 544

People v. Shoals (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 475, 490, 492

Third Holding:

In determining whether a place is opened or maintained for the purpose of selling, giving away, or using a controlled substance, the trier of fact should consider the surrounding circumstances, including: the quantity of any controlled substance discovered; the character of the place opened or maintained; how the place is fitted up; whether other individuals visited the place in unusual numbers or at unusual times; whether other individuals who were under the influence of a controlled substance were found at the place; whether lookouts were posted near or at the place; whether a password or passcode was needed for entry into the place; any pertinent statements by the defendant or those found at the premises; and whether any drug paraphernalia or drug residue was found in the place.

However, the quantity of controlled substance discovered at a place is alone insufficient to show that the place was maintained or opened for the purpose of continuously selling, giving away, or using a controlled substance.

Authority:

People v. Franco (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 713, 726

People v. Hawkins (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 675, 683

People v. Shoals (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 475, 491-492

People v. Cannon (1957) 148 Cal.App.2d 163, 168

Fourth Holding:

Health and Safety Code section 11366 prohibits opening or maintaining a place for the purpose of selling, using, or giving away a controlled substance; it does not prohibit opening or maintaining a place for the purpose of growing or cultivating a controlled substance/marijuana. (Cf. sec. 11366 with 11358 [prohibiting the cultivation of marijuana]; 11366.5 [prohibiting individuals from making available a premises for the manufacture of a controlled substance]; cf. also Dowl [describing separate criminal provisions that are exempt from prosecution pursuant to the Medical Marijuana Program of sec. 11362.7 et seq.]

Authority:

People v. Dowl (2013) 57 Cal.4th 1079, 1086

Fifth Holding:

Section 11366 requires that a controlled substance be sold, used, or given away at the place maintained for such a purpose. Section 11366 simply does not address controlled substances that are sold, used, or given away at a location other than the place, even if the controlled substance is produced at the place. Accordingly, Shoals and related considerations do not support the conclusion that the instant property was used for the purpose of continuously selling, using, or giving away marijuana to others.

Authority:

HSC 11366

People v. Shoals (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 475, 491 [The prosecution must prove that appellant opened or maintained the hotel room for the purpose of selling the cocaine base.]

People v. Holland (1958) 158 Cal.App.2d 583, 588 [There is no evidence that this barbecue stand was opened for the prohibited purpose.]

Sixth Holding:

A conviction cannot be constitutionally sustained on the basis of a theory that was not actually presented to the jury. Here, the instructions informed the jury that the controlled substance at issue was cannabis; cocaine was not mentioned. Therefore, the defendant’s conviction cannot be sustained based on the cocaine discovered at the property. In sum, the evidence shows the property was used to grow, cultivate, and process marijuana, but that is all. Substantial evidence does not support the section 11366 conviction because there is insufficient evidence that the defendant maintained the property for the purpose of continuously selling, using, or giving away marijuana at the property.

Authority:

Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 314

Cole v. Arkansas (1948) 333 U.S. 196, 202

People v. Kunkin (1973) 9 Cal.3d 245, 251

People v. Zemek (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 313, 340

People v. Garcia (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 519, 525

Seventh Holding:

Substantial evidence does not support the defendant’s conviction for felon in possession of ammunition. His prior felony under section 11359 was reduced to a misdemeanor and sealed. As a result of the resentencing and sealing, the prior felony is no longer a felony and cannot be used to support the defendant’s conviction. Because he has no other prior felony convictions, conviction on that count is unsupported and must be reversed.

In 2016, voters approved Proposition 64, which, among other things, generally reduced marijuana-related crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, including the offense of possession under section 11359. Proposition 64 also added section 11361.8, which provides a mechanism to obtain relief for those currently serving a sentence, or for those who had completed a sentence, for a marijuana offense affected by Proposition 64. For those qualifying defendants who have completed a sentence, the court shall redesignate the conviction as a misdemeanor or infraction or dismiss and seal the conviction as legally invalid.

Further, the Legislature has provided that a conviction that has been ordered sealed pursuant to section 11361.8 is deemed never to have occurred, and the person may reply accordingly to any inquiry about the events. The parties agree that, because the defendant had his prior felony conviction reduced to a misdemeanor under Proposition 64 and sealed, he was no longer a felon in possession of ammunition, and the count must be reversed.

Authority:

HSC 11361.8

HSC 11361.9

People v. Smit (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 596, 599, 600

People v. Jessup (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 83, 88

People v. Saelee (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 744, 751

People v. Taylor (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 115, 120, fn. 3.

Eighth Holding:

Penal Code section 654 provides in part 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.

Section 654 may apply to an indivisible course of criminal conduct involving violations of different statutes, where the defendant commits the violations with a single intent and objective. It has been held that section 654 applies to prevent a defendant from being punished for both possession of marijuana and cultivation of marijuana where the possession was merely incidental to the cultivation.

A court’s implicit or express finding that a defendant harbored different intents and objectives for purposes of section 654 is reviewed for substantial evidence. The parties agree, and we concur, that substantial evidence does not support the trial court’s implicit finding that the defendant harbored different intents and objectives with respect to counts 6 and 7, cultivation of marijuana and possession of marijuana. The court must stay the sentence on one of the two counts.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Brents (2012) 53 Cal.4th 599, 618

People v. Rodriguez (2009) 47 Cal.4th 501, 507

People v. Vasquez (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 732, 736–737

People v. McDaniel (1957) 154 Cal.App.2d 475, 485–486

People v. Richardson (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 1203, 1214

Ninth Holding:

Health and Safety Code section 11372.7–which imposes a drug program fee for violation of its chapter–expressly excludes section 11357(b), possession of more than an ounce of marijuna, from its application. Thus, the trial court erred in imposing the fee under that that section, and it must be stricken, along with other fees that came into play based on that improperly imposed assessment.

Authority:

HSC 11372.7(e)

Tenth Holding:

The minute order contains several errors that must be corrected: (1) with respect to count 2 at page 3, the minute order lists the basis for fines and penalties as section 11372.5 instead of 11372.7; (2) with respect to count 2 at page 4, the minute order identifies the amount of penalty assessments as $3,210 instead of $310; (3) with respect to count 1 at page 5, the minute order lists the basis for fines and penalties as section 11372.5 instead of 11372.7; (4) with respect to count 5 at pages 5 and 6, all fees and penalties are improper because they were not imposed as part of the oral pronouncement of sentence.

A trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence constitutes the judgment in a criminal case, and to the extent there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and a minute order or abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement will control. Reviewing courts on appeal may correct any discrepancy that exists between a trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence and a minute order or abstract of judgment.

Authority:

People v. Gobert (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 676, 689

People v. Scott (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1324