People v. Fewell CA3

DISCUSSION

Defendant correctly contends that the concurrent sentence on count two violates section 654 and should be stayed. “Section 654 prohibits multiple punishment for multiple crimes which arise out of a single act or an indivisible course of conduct. [Citation.]” (People v. Cole (1985) 165

2 Cal.App.3d 41, 53 (Cole).) “When confronted with offenses within the ambit of section 654, the procedure is to stay the execution of sentence on all but one of the offenses subject to section 654. [Citation.]” (Cole, supra, at p. 53.) As defendant points out, and the Attorney General acknowledges, the prosecutor in closing argument described the facts of attempted carjacking and attempted kidnapping in nearly identical terms. For the steps that constituted attempted carjacking, the prosecutor said: “We have [defendant] getting into her car unannounced, without permission. We have him pulling out a weapon and pointing it down at her. We have him telling her, ‘You need to drive right now.’ ” For attempted kidnapping, the prosecutor explained: “Again, [defendant] gets into [Sylvia’s] car unannounced, and he pulls out a weapon. He tells her that she needs to drive.” The word “[a]gain” that…