People v. Provost CA4/3

DISCUSSION

Section 654 Appellant contends the trial court violated section 654 by imposing sentence on counts four through six because they were based on the same act that formed the basis for his conviction on count seven. As respondent concedes, the claim is well taken. Under section 654, “An 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.” (§ 654, subd. (a).) This prohibition applies even if the defendant harbored multiple objectives for his crimes. (People v. Mesa (2012) 54 Cal.4th 191, 199.) While the presence of multiple objectives may justify multiple punishment when the defendant’s crimes involve multiple acts, that is not the case when the defendant’s crimes are based upon a single act or omission. (Ibid.) Here, appellant was convicted of four separate crimes in counts four through seven based on the lone act of unlawfully possessing a single firearm in his car. Since count seven carries the longest term of imprisonment, the trial court should have…