Error and/or relief
The trial court should have stayed the sentence for either the assault or the battery conviction.
First Holding:
Although Code of Civil Procedure section 269 provided defendant with a statutory right to a certified shorthand reporter rather than an electronic recording, we conclude violation of that statutory right was harmless. The proceedings were recorded electronically and extensive transcripts were prepared based on the recordings.
The California Supreme Court has held that the trial court’s failure to comply with Penal Code section 190.9, requiring that all proceedings in a capital case be conducted on the record with a court reporter present, was harmless where the record was nevertheless adequate to permit meaningful appellate review.
Similarly, here, defendant possessed a statutory right to a certified court reporter, but the trial court’s inability to comply with that right, regardless of the reason, was harmless so long as the electronic recording produced an adequate appellate record.
(Gary note: You might want to look at Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Court (Contra Costa County) 8/10/26 S288176, in which the Supreme Court recognized the right to a verbatim transcript, whether by certified shorthand reporter or electronic, despite the Government Code section 69957 proscription against use of electronic recording other than in limited exceptions. While the case was a civil dispute, the principles would seem to apply in criminal cases as well. It’s at least worth looking at, because it may be useful on the quality of the transcript process even where criminal proceedings are electronically recorded.)
Authority:
CCP 269
People v. Hajek and Vo (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1144, 1256-1258 (Hajek and Vo were abrogated on another point by People v. Rangel (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1192, 1216)
Second 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.
Authority:
PEN 654
Third Holding:
Whether a defendant may be subjected to multiple punishment under section 654 requires a two-step inquiry, because 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. We first consider if the different crimes were completed by a single physical act. If so, the defendant may not be punished more than once for that act.
Only if we conclude 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 a single intent and objective or multiple intents and objectives. Section 654 prohibits multiple sentences where the defendant commits different acts that violate different statutes but the acts comprise an indivisible course of conduct engaged in with a single intent and objective.
Whether section 654 applies in a given case is a question of fact for the trial court, which is vested with broad latitude in making its determination. Its findings will not be reversed on appeal if there is any substantial evidence to support them.
Authority:
People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 311
People v. Latten (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 574, 577
People v. Jones (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1143
Fourth Holding:
Section 654 now provides the trial court with discretion to impose and execute the sentence of either term, which could result in the trial court imposing and executing the shorter sentence rather than the longer sentence. Thus, unless the record clearly indicates which sentence the trial court would stay, remand is required to permit the trial court to exercise its discretion.
Authority:
People v. Mani (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 343, 379
People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391