California Criminal Trial Manual

General Rule

• PC 654 bars multiple punishments for separate offenses arising out of a single occurrence where all of the offenses were incident to one objective. (People v. Rodriguez (2009) 47 Cal.4th 501, 506; People v. Lewis (2008); 43 Cal.4th 415, 519.)
• PC 654 “says an “act” punishable in different ways by different legal provisions shall be punished under the provision providing the longest term of imprisonment, but in no case shall the “act” be punished under more than one provision.” (People v. Barrios (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 176, 179.)
  • Compare with PC 954: D may be charged w/ different statements of same offense, but may only be convicted of one (PC 654 has no application to these situations)
• The statute “expressly prohibits separate punishment for two crimes based on the same act, but has been interpreted to also preclude multiple punishment for two or more crimes occurring within the same course of conduct pursuant to a single intent.” (People v. Vargas (2014) 59 Cal.4th 635, 642.)
• Two-step inquiry (People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 311.):
  • Step 1: Whether the different crimes were completed by a ‘single physical act.’
    • If so –> D may not be punished more than once for that act
    • Relevant inquiry is whether “a separate and distinct act can be established as the basis of each conviction.” (People v. Beamon (1973) 8 Cal.3d 625, 637.)
  • Step 2: Where case involves more than a single act (i.e. course of conduct), whether the course of conduct reflects a single “intent and objective” or multiple intents and objectives
• Simply, when multiple counts are based on the same physical act, the court may only impose a sentence on a single count.
• Sentencing. Sentencing courts have discretion to punish an act or omission punishable in different ways under different laws under the longest potential term of imprisonment (but are not required to). (People v. Mani (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 343, 351.)
• Effect of PC 654. Court must stay execution of a sentence under PC 654 for convictions that fall under PC 654 (not just run the sentence concurrent to other counts). (People v. Rodriguez (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1000, 1004, fn. 2.)
• Case Law
  • Multiple Assaults on Same Victim – generally not PC 654
    • Kidnap for murder, then assaults including mayhem where V survives. (People v. Surdi (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 685.)
    • Mayhem + DV. (People v. Sexton (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 457.)
    • BUT SEE: People v. Mendoza (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 843 [PC 654 applied where assaults did not occur over “extended period.”].)
  • Separation in Time
    • Burglary to take key, then returns on later date w/ key to enter house & assault victim, NOT 654. (People v. Kwok (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1236.)
  • Threat Crimes. PC 422 + PC 646.9, when based on same acts, are PC 654 to each other. (People v. Roles (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 935.)
    • But when Crimes are distinct & separate acts, PC 654 does not apply. (See People v. Cruz (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 715 [D had single intent to persuade V to get back together with him, but threats divisible as they occurred on multiple days].)

Course of Conduct: Multiple Objectives Exception

• A “course of conduct encompassing several acts” may result in multiple punishment if it reflects “multiple intents and objectives.” (People v. Salazar (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 453, 458.)
• “If D entertained multiple criminal objectives which were independent of and not merely incidental to each other, he may be punished for independent violations committed in pursuit of each objective, even though the violations shared common acts or were parts of an otherwise indivisible course of conduct.” (People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 335; People v. Porter (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 34, 38.)
  • “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.” (People v. Rodriguez (2009) 47 Cal.4th 501, 507.)
• Temporal proximity of two offenses is insufficient by itself to establish that they were incident to a single objective. (People v. Jackson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 269, 354.)
• Chance to Reflect. “[M]ultiple crimes are not one transaction where the D had a chance to reflect between offenses and each offense created a new risk of harm.” (People v. Lopez (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 698, 717.)
• Case Law (where PC 654 inapplicable)
  • People v. Louie (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 388, 399: 654 Multiple objectives where 15-minute gap b/w threats and arson
  • Drive-by shooting. Each trigger pull is a separate intent & objective. (People v. Phung (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 741.)
  • In re Raymundo (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 78: juvenile assaulted and threatened same V, by running at him with a knife and yelling “you’re going to die today.”
    • Held, not PC 654 b/c Court could reasonably conclude different objectives, in that minor committed assault w/ intent to inflict physical harm, while separately criminally threatening V w/ objective of inflicting emotional harm.
• Case Law (where PC 654 applies)
  • Burglary to commit robbery.
    • (People v. Le (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 925 [steals whiskey & diapers].)
    • People v. Miller (1977) 18 Cal.3d 873: D robs jewelry store, holds employee at gunpoint, steals item, gunfire wounds security guard, causing GBI
      • PC 459 + PC 211 for guard & employee, respectively. PC 245 stayed per 654 b/c involved same V as PC 459 (guard)
  • PC 460(a) + PC 166. (People v. Mani (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 343.)
  • Dissuading a witness + threatening a witness in a single act. (People v. Mendoza (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1333.)
  • Torture by spousal rape + corporal injury to spouse. (People v. Mejia (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 1036.)

Course of Conduct: Temporal Separation Exception

• “[W]here a course of conduct is divisible in time it may give rise to multiple punishment even if the acts are directive to one objective.” (People v. Louie (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 388, 399.)
• Where the defendants’ acts are “temporally separated” they “afford the defendant opportunity to reflect and to renew his or intent before committing the next [offense], thereby aggravating the violation of public security or policy already undertaken.” (People v. Gaio (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 919, 935.)
• If the separation in time afforded a defendant an opportunity to reflect and to renew his or her intent before committing the next crime, a new and separate crime is committed. (People v. Roles (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 935, 946.)
• Where multiple acts evincing the same intent are sufficiently independent to reflect a renewal of such intent, section 654 is no bar to separate punishments. (People v. Mendoza (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 843, 853.)
• Case Law
  • 3 identical acts of sexual penetration accomplished over the course of 7-10 minutes, PC 654 inapplicable to separate punishments where they were interrupted by prolonged periods of struggle. (People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 335.)
  • 3 shots fired at pursuing police vehicle separately punishable where “separated by periods of time during which reflection was possible.” (People v. Trotter (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 363, 368.)

Multiple Victim Exception

• Limitations of section 654 do not apply to crimes of violence against multiple victims. (People v. Oates (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1048.)

Multiple Sex Acts Exception

• Multiple forcible sexual penetrations are exempt from PC 654. (People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 329.)
• Multiple sex acts under PC 288(a) are exempt from PC 654. (People v. Kirk (1990) 217 Cal.Ap.3d 1488, 1496.)
• PC 667.6. Court’s discretion under PC 667.6(c) to impose full-term consecutive sentences for sex crimes is categorically exempt from PC 654. (People v. Hicks (1993) 6 Cal.4th 784.)

PC 654 & Enhancements

• Sentence Enhancements. PC 654 applies. (People v. Ahmed (2011) 53 Cal.4th 156, 164.)
• “When applied to multiple enhancements for a single crime, section 654 bars multiple punishment for the same aspect of a criminal act.”
• To determine if PC 654 bars multiple punishment under multiple enhancements:
  • Step 1: Is there a more specific statute?
    • If yes – no § 654 analysis (ex: 1170.1(f) or (g))
    • If no – analyze for § 654
  • Step 2: Does the enhancement go to the nature of the offender or the nature of the offense?
    • If offender – no § 654
    • If offense – analyze § 654
  • Step 3: Do the conduct enhancements in question focus on the same “aspect” of the criminal act?
    • If no – not § 654
    • If yes – § 654 (ex: 12022.7 + 23558 on same V; or multiple weapon enhancement on an ISL not governed by 1170.1)
• PC 654 does not apply to an enhancement as it relates to the same conduct as its underlying offense. (People v. Calderon (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 656.)
• PC 654 may bar imposition of multiple weapon or injury enhancements applicable to an ISL term. (People v. Wong (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 972.)

AB 518

• New PC 654 authorizes court to impose sentence on the crime that carries the lesser penalty, and stay the sentence on the crime carrying the greater penalty when PC 654 applies
• The court now has the authority to decide for which of the counts, based on the same act, it will impose a sentence. The “greatest” sentence is no longer required. (People v. Caparaz (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 669, 688.)

PC 654 Findings

• When the court determines that a conviction falls within the meaning of PC 654, it is necessary to impose sentence but to stay the execution of the duplicative sentence. (People v. Mani (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 343.)