People v. Banks CA4/1

DISCUSSION

Banks contends that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences on counts 2 and 4 because the false imprisonment occurred while

3 the robbery was still in progress; therefore, he contends that the court should

have stayed the sentences for either counts 2 or 4.2 We disagree. A. Guiding Principles Effective January 1, 2022, amended section 654, subdivision (a) provides in 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.” As our Supreme Court has explained: “Section 654 does not preclude multiple convictions but only multiple punishments for a single act or indivisible course of conduct. [Citation.] ‘The proscription against double punishment . . . is applicable where there is a course of conduct which violates more than one statute and comprises an indivisible transaction punishable under more than one statute . . . . The divisibility of a course of conduct depends upon the intent and objective of the actor.’ ” (People v. Miller (1977) 18 Cal.3d 873, 885 (Miller).) “ ‘[I]f all…