PC654

PC654

Statute

(a) An act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law shall be punished under the provision that provides for the longest potential term of imprisonment, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision. An acquittal or conviction and sentence under any one bars a prosecution for the same act or omission under any other.

(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a defendant sentenced pursuant to subdivision (a) shall not be granted probation if any of the provisions that would otherwise apply to the defendant prohibits the granting of probation.

(Amended by Stats. 1997, Ch. 410, Sec. 1. Effective January 1, 1998.)

Procedure

The sentence imposed and stayed under PC654 is a normal full-term sentence, not a 1/3 middle-term consecutive. (People v. Cantrell (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1161.)

Rules of Court rule 4.412(b) also says that when a defendant agrees to a sentence, that the defendant is giving up any PC654 rights.

The California Supreme Court in People v. Deloza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 585, 591-592, said: “If, for example, a defendant suffers two convictions, punishment for one of which is precluded by section 654, that section requires the sentence for one conviction to be imposed, and the other imposed and then stayed.” The next sentence is “Section 654 does not allow any multiple punishment, including either concurrent or consecutive sentences.”

So a sentence under Penal Code 654 is imposed and stayed and is not concurrent. The sentence must be imposed, so a term must be selected. “A sentence must be imposed on each count, otherwise if the nonstayed sentence is vacated, either on appeal or in a collateral attack on the judgment, no valid sentence will remain. … A trial court can impose sentence on all counts, and then stay execution of sentence as necessary to comply with section 654, that way, if the unstayed sentence is reversed, a valid sentence remains extant… to implement section 654, the trial court must impose sentence on all counts, but stay execution of sentence as necessary to prevent multiple punishment.” People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1469.

People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 350, held that when a defendant had a single revolver, he could only be punished once under PC654, even though definitely was felon-in-possessing, carrying a concealed gun, and carrying a loaded gun in public. One punishment per firearm. But under Penal Code section 23510, if you have more than one firearm, then you can punish once for each firearm.

People v. Washington (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 776, has an in-depth discussion of how PC654 works when you have HSC11370.1, felon-in-possession, and drug trafficking charges. Court said if you are punishing someone for possession for sales, you cannot punish the person for HSC11370.1. If you are punishing someone for felon-in-possession, you cannot punish the person for HSC11370.1. If you are not punishing the HSC11370.1, you can punish for both the sales and for the felon-in-possession.

The big CEB book has many pages on this at section 37.44 to 37.50.

CDAA also has a sentencing manual online at https://www.cdaa.org/wp-content/uploads/CDAA-Sentencing-Outline-Nickel-2022.pdf in which this is at pages 56 to 57.

Notable cases

The phrase “act or omission” appears in section 654 proscribing multiple punishments. We learn an assault occurring in the course of a robbery is a separate act punishable by a term consecutive to that imposed for the robbery (People v. Williamson (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 164, 153 Cal.Rptr. 48); assault and rape are separate offenses but part of indivisible **93 conduct (People v. Apodaca (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 479, 142 Cal.Rptr. 830); assault with a deadly weapon and burglary are separate offenses but arise from a single act (People v. Radil (1977) 76 Cal.App.3d 702, 142 Cal.Rptr. 233); felony vehicular manslaughter and felony drunk driving are separate offenses arising out of different acts even though the victim was killed while the driver was under the influence (People v. Rocha (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 972, 146 Cal.Rptr. 81); petty theft of purse and grand theft of a gun in the purse are separate offenses arising out of the same act (People v. Campbell (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 599, 133 Cal.Rptr. 815).

People v. Sur. Ins. Co., 139 Cal. App. 3d 848, 853, 189 Cal. Rptr. 89, 92–93 (Ct. App. 1983)

Driving Under the Influence

A defendant can not be punished for both a violation of Vehicle Code section 23152(a) and Vehicle Code section 23152(b). (See People v. Subramani (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 1106 [holding so for VC23153(a) and VC23153(b)].)

Firearms

People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 350, 357 held "that a single possession or carrying of a single firearm on a single occasion may be punished only once under section 654." In Jones, police searched the defendant's car and found an unregistered revolver. The defendant was convicted of three counts: Felon in possession (former PC12021), concealed carry (former PC12025), and loaded firearm in public (former PC12031). The Supremes ruled that even if the possession of a single firearm is unlawful in multiple ways, if it was a single act, it can only be punished once. People v. Atencio (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1239, follows Jones, holding that grand theft of a firearm and being in possession of that same firearm the next day was subject to PC654. People v. Saunders

People v. Spirlin (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 119 - possession of a gun on three separate occasions over 32-days was one course of conduct.

Multiple firearms can mean multiple punishments. (People v. Correa (2012) 54 Cal.4th 331.)