Alford

People v. Alford

Bad Law
103 Cal. Rptr. 3d 898·180 Cal. App. 4th 1463·2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 29
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 13, 2010C060251California3,251 words

Opinion

Opinion

Cantil-Sakauye, J.

In this appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 839 , 600 P.2d 1071 ], we solicited supplemental briefing to clarify the proper way to implement Penal Code section 654.

Broadly speaking, one branch of section 654 precludes multiple punishment when a criminal act or omission violates multiple penal provisions. We conclude that when a trial court determines that section 654 applies to a particular count, the trial court must impose sentence on that count and then stay execution of that sentence. There is no authority for a court to refrain from imposing sentence on all counts, except where probation is granted. And failing to impose sentence on all counts can lead to procedural difficulties if the count on which sentence was imposed is later reversed or vacated.

This should not be a controversial proposition. It has been the law for many years. However, California Rules of Court, rule 4.424 provides that a sentencing court “must determine whether the proscription in section 654 against multiple punishments for the same act or omission requires a stay of imposition of sentence on some of the counts.” Rule 4.424 misstates the correct way to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.