In re Heedly

An information charged petitioner Louis Heedly with burglary of the A. G. Damico Company and with grand theft for theft of personal property from said company. A jury found petitioner guilty of burglary of the second degree and grand theft, with two prior convictions being charged and found true. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences for the two offenses.

In substance, the contention of petitioner is that the concurrent sentences inflict multiple punishment in violation of Penal Code section 654.

The attorney general concedes the evidence establishes that the purpose of the burglary was to commit the theft of which petitioner was convicted; that punishment for both crimes is *855 improper under the provisions of section 654 of the Penal Code; that the maximum punishment for grand theft is imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 10 years; that petitioner’s sentence for grand theft expired at maximum on May 6, 1964; that petitioner is no longer held under the sentence for grand theft; that petitioner is presently confined solely under the sentence for burglary of the second degree; and that the maximum punishment for burglary of the second degree is…