In re P.S. CA4/2

DISCUSSION

Minor contends that the juvenile court erred in setting the maximum term of

confinement at six years 10 months because the consecutive terms on the receiving stolen

property and possession of burglary tools offenses should have been stayed pursuant to

Penal Code section 654. He therefore requests that this court reduce the maximum term

of confinement to six years. The People respond that the court did not impose a

consecutive term on the receiving stolen property charge, and that this court should not

order any correction as to the possession of burglary tools offense. We are inclined to

agree with the People.

Penal Code section 654 prohibits multiple punishment for an indivisible course of

conduct even though it violates more than one statute. (People v. James (1977) 19 Cal.3d

99, 119; In re Joseph G. (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1735, 1743-1744.) Whether a course of

conduct is indivisible depends on the intent and objective of the actor. (People v. Latimer

(1993) 5 Cal.4th 1203, 1216; Neal v. State of California (1960) 55 Cal.2d 11, 19.) If all

the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of

such offenses but not for…