Palacios

People v. Palacios

Good Law
2007 Cal. LEXIS 7249·41 Cal. 4th 720·62 Cal. Rptr. 3d 145·161 P.3d 519
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 12, 2007S132144California4,878 words

Opinion

Opinion

Corrigan, J.

We hold that the sentence enhancement provisions of Penal Code section 12022.53 are not limited by the multiple punishment prohibition of Penal Code section 654. Section 12022.53 prescribes substantial sentence enhancements for using a firearm in the commission of certain felonies. Here, three enhancements were imposed Under subdivision (d) of that statute based on a single shot fired at a single victim during the simultaneous commission of three qualifying offenses. The Court of Appeal held that punishment on all but one of these enhancements must be stayed pursuant to the multiple punishment prohibition of section 654, even though section 654 did not preclude separate punishment for each of the underlying offenses. We conclude that imposition of punishment for each of the multiple section 12022.53 enhancements in these circumstances is required. To hold otherwise would contravene the plain language of section 12022.53. Thus, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On May 3, 2002, 19-year-old Brian Jones left work in Chula Vista around 2:00 a.m. and stopped at a nearby gas station. Shana Dreiling, a stranger, approached him…

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.