People v. Williams

Appellant was found guilty of first degree robbery and assault with a deadly weapon. He was sentenced to state prison on both counts, the sentences to run consecutively. The sole issue presented on this appeal is whether or not these consecutive sentences constitute double punishment in violation of the provision of section 654 of the Penal Code that “An act or omission which is made punishable in different ways by different provisions of this code may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no ease can it be punished under more than one; . . . ”

We have concluded that the controlling precedents vindicate the judgment of the trial court and its implied finding that appellant’s course of criminal conduct was divisible.

On the morning of July 7, 1964, appellant entered a hardware store armed with a .410 gauge shotgun. He ordered two customers to lie face down on the floor. He then commanded the owner of the store to put the money from the cash register and from his wallet into a paper sack. The essential features of appellant’s course of criminal conduct are graphically portrayed by the following testimony of the store owner:

The owner was struck in the right arm by…

The majority in Neal v. State of California, 55 Cal.2d 11, at p. 19 [ 9 Cal.Rptr. 607 , 357 P.2d 839 ], holds: “Few if any crimes, however, are the result of a single physical act. ‘ Section 654 has been applied not only where there was but one ‘ ‘ act ’ ’ in the ordinary sense . . . but also where a course of conduct violated more than one statute and the problem was whether it comprised a divisible transaction which could be punished under more than one statute within the meaning of section 654.’ (People v. Brown, supra, 591.)”

The cases which follow Neal including People v. Ford, 65 Cal.2d 41 [ 52 Cal.Rptr. 228 , 416 P.2d 132 ], cited by the majority, reiterate that “. . . the meaning of section 654 depends upon his [defendant’s] intent and the determination whether he committed both offenses incident to one objective.” (People v. Ford, supra, p. 48 .)

It appears, therefore, that when a course of criminal *664 conduct gives rise to multiple crimes, the only question of fact to be determined by the trial court is whether the “. . . intent and the determination ...” of a defendant who commits more than one offense in the perpetration of a crime, such as robbery, was embarked…

Appellant was found guilty of first degree robbery and assault with a deadly weapon. He was sentenced to state prison on both counts, the sentences to run consecutively. [1] The sole issue presented on this appeal is whether or not these consecutive sentences constitute double punishment in violation of the provision of section 654 of the Penal Code that "An act or omission which is made punishable in different ways by different provisions of this code may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no case can it be punished under more than one; ..."

We have concluded that the controlling precedents vindicate the judgment of the trial court and its implied finding that appellant's course of criminal conduct was divisible.

On the morning of July 7, 1964, appellant entered a hardware store armed with a .410 gauge shotgun. He ordered two customers to lie face down on the floor. He then commanded the owner of the store to put the money from the cash register and from his wallet into a paper sack. The essential features of appellant's course of criminal conduct are graphically portrayed by the following testimony of the store owner:

"Q. What did you do then? A.…