PC654 - Revision history

Sysop: /* Driving Under the Influence */

2026-03-07T04:09:45Z

Driving Under the Influence

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:09, 7 March 2026
Line 43:		Line 43:
	==Driving Under the Influence==		==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)].)		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)].)

			A defendant can be separately punished both VC23152 and VC14601.2 (''People v. Martinez'' (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 851.)

	==Firearms==		==Firearms==

Sysop at 04:31, 8 February 2026

2026-02-08T04:31:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:31, 8 February 2026
Line 51:		Line 51:

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

			==Drugs==

			People v. Chung (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 462

			People v. Monarrez (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 710

			People v. Lopez (1967) 251 Cal.App.2d 918

Sysop: /* Procedure */

2025-05-24T04:09:26Z

Procedure

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:09, 24 May 2025
Line 29:		Line 29:
	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.		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.

			Section 654 prohibits punishment for two or more offenses arising from the same act or from a series of acts constituting an indivisible course of conduct. (People v. Latimer (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1203, 1216).4 “ ‘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 the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of the offenses but not more than one.’ ” (People v. Correa (2012) 54 Cal.4th 331, 336.) Section 654 is intended to ensure that the defendant is punished commensurate with his or her culpability. (People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 335.) The defendant's intent and objective, not the temporal proximity of his or her offenses, determines whether multiple punishment is permissible. (Ibid.)
			“ ‘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. [Citations.] Its findings will not be reversed on appeal if there is any substantial evidence to support them. [Citations.] We review the trial court's determination in the light most favorable to the respondent and presume the existence of every fact the trial court could reasonably deduce from the evidence.’ ” (People v. Ortiz (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1354, 1378.)
			In People v. Mejia (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 1036 (Mejia ), the defendant was convicted of spousal rape, infliction of corporal injury on a spouse, criminal threats, and torture. (Id. at p. 1039.) In determining whether section 654 applied to the torture and criminal threats counts the Mejia court noted that torture required the specific intent to inflict cruel or extreme physical pain or suffering and that “mentally or emotionally terrorizing the victim by means of threats is an objective separate from the intent to cause extreme physical pain.” (Id. at pp. 1046-1047.)
			The reasoning of Mejia, supra, 9 Cal.App.5th 1036 applies here. Vanderwood could have caused Doe cruel or extreme physical pain and suffering without threatening to kill her. Doe testified that Vanderwood's threats to “kill” concerned her because “everything else that he had said he was going to do, he did or tried to do.” The trial court could have reasonably concluded that Vanderwood's objective in threatening to kill Doe was to place her in sustained fear for her life. Thus, even though Vanderwood's verbal threats and physical acts were otherwise parts of an indivisible course of conduct, the trial court properly imposed both sentences to punish Vanderwood commensurate with his increased culpability.

	==Notable cases==		==Notable cases==

Sysop: /* Driving Under the Influence */

2024-05-07T14:43:03Z

Driving Under the Influence

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:43, 7 May 2024
Line 40:		Line 40:
	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)].)		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===		==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. 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.		''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.)

Sysop at 17:44, 5 May 2024

2024-05-05T17:44:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:44, 5 May 2024
Line 7:		Line 7:

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

Sysop at 03:14, 31 July 2023

2023-07-31T03:14:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:14, 31 July 2023
Line 10:		Line 10:

	==Notable cases==		==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==		==Driving Under the Influence==

Sysop: /* Firearms */

2019-08-30T22:39:08Z

Firearms

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:39, 30 August 2019
Line 16:		Line 16:
	===Firearms===		===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. 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.

Sysop: /* Driving Under the Influence */

2017-08-07T00:50:10Z

Driving Under the Influence

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:50, 7 August 2017
Line 12:		Line 12:

	==Driving Under the Influence==		==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). (''People v. Subramani'' (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 1106.)		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===		===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. 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

Sysop: /* Notable cases */

2017-08-07T00:47:34Z

Notable cases

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:47, 7 August 2017
Line 7:		Line 7:

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


	==Notable cases==		==Notable cases==

			==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). (''People v. Subramani'' (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 1106.)

	===Firearms===		===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. 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

Sysop: /* Notable cases */

2014-04-12T03:08:02Z

Notable cases

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:08, 12 April 2014
Line 9:		Line 9:

	==Notable cases==		==Notable cases==
			===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. 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