People v. Garibaldi CA2/4

DISCUSSION

Garibaldi’s sole contention on appeal is the trial court erred in violation of section 654 by imposing the firearm enhancement on count one, without staying the eight-month sentence on count two (the felon in possession of a firearm count). Specifically, he argues that under section 654, substantial evidence does not support the trial court’s imposition of sentence on count two, because the court could not reasonably conclude the firearm

3 possession was divisible from the armed robbery. We are unpersuaded.

A. Relevant Law

Section 654, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part: “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.” Put more succinctly, section 654 bars multiple punishments for a single act. (People v. Jones (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1143 (Jones).) It also bars multiple punishments for acts that comprise an indivisible course of conduct. (Ibid.) The question whether a course of criminal conduct is divisible depends on the intent and objective of the actor. (Ibid.) “[I]f the…