People v. McNeece CA3

DISCUSSION

I Application of Section 654 Defendant contends the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences on counts 2 and 3 under section 654, as section 654 bars multiple punishment for convictions arising from an indivisible course of criminal conduct. The People concede the error. Section 654, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, “[a]n act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law shall be punished under the provision that provides for the longest potential term of imprisonment, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision.” Section 654 is intended “to insure that a defendant’s punishment is commensurate with his [or her] culpability.” (People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 551.) The statute bars multiple punishment for both a single act that violates more than one criminal statute and multiple acts, where those acts comprise an indivisible course of conduct incident to a single criminal objective and intent. (People v. Latimer (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1203, 1208; Neal v.

3 State of California (1960) 55 Cal.2d 11, 19, disapproved on a different point in People v. Correa (2012) 54 Cal.4th 331,…