section 654 two step inquiry in California

2026Applicable Law Section 654 provides in relevant part that “[a]n act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no case shall the act or omission be 38 punished under more than one provision.” (§ 654, subd. (a).) “Whether a defendant may be subjected to multiple punishment under section 654 requires a two-step inquiry, because the statutory reference to an ‘act or omission’ may include not only a discrete physical act but also a course of conduct encompassing several acts pursued with a single objective

2026Section 654, subdivision (a) provides, in relevant part “An act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision.” “Whether a defendant may be subjected to multiple punishment under section 654 requires a two-step inquiry, because the statutory reference to an ‘act or omission’ may include not only a discrete physical act but also a course of conduct encompassing several acts pursued with a single objective.” (People v. Corpening (20

2026“An act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision.” (§ 654, subd. (a).) Moreover, “because [section 654] is intended to ensure that defendant is punished ‘commensurate with his culpability’ [citation], its protection has been extended to cases in which there are several offenses committed during ‘a course of conduct deemed to be indivisible in time.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 335 .) “Whether a defe

2026“An act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision.” (§ 654, subd. (a).) Moreover, “because [section 654] is intended to ensure that defendant is punished ‘commensurate with his culpability’ [citation], its protection has been extended to cases in which there are several offenses committed during ‘a course of conduct deemed to be indivisible in time.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 335 .) “Whether a defe

2022(See People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 316 [when a single physical act serves as the basis for convicting the defendant of two separate crimes, we need “not reach step two of the section 654 analysis: whether the forceful taking involved multiple intents and objectives”].) In concluding section 654 did not apply, the trial court relied on People v. 12 Vang (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 912 and People v. Harrison (1969) 1 Cal.App.3d 115 .However, both those cases were decided before People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 350, 360 (Jones), in which our Supreme Court held that possession of controlle

2022(See People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 316 [when a single physical act serves as the basis for convicting the defendant of two separate crimes, we need “not reach step two of the section 654 analysis: whether the forceful taking involved multiple intents and objectives”].) In concluding section 654 did not apply, the trial court relied on People v. 12 Vang (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 912 and People v. Harrison (1969) 1 Cal.App.3d 115 .However, both those cases were decided before People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 350, 360 (Jones), in which our Supreme Court held that possession of controlle

2022Multiple Punishment in Violation of Section 654 Former section 654, subdivision (a), which was in effect when defendant was sentenced, provided in pertinent part: “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.” (Italics added.) “Whether a defendant may be subjected to multiple punishment under section 654 requires a two-step inquiry, because the statutory reference to an ‘

2021Multiple Punishment in Violation of Section 654 Section 654, subdivision (a), provides in pertinent part: “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.” (Italics added.) 30 “Whether a defendant may be subjected to multiple punishment under section 654 requires a two-step inquiry, because the statutory reference to an ‘act or omission’ may include not only a discrete physi

2018Section 654, subdivision (a) provides in pertinent part: "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." The statute does not prohibit multiple convictions for the same conduct, only multiple punishments. ( People v. Monarrez (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 710 , 713, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 247 .) "In such a case, the proper procedure is to stay execution of sentence on one of the offenses.

2018Section 654, subdivision (a) provides in pertinent part: "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." The statute does not prohibit multiple convictions for the same conduct, only multiple punishments. ( People v. Monarrez (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 710 , 713, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 247 .) "In such a case, the proper procedure is to stay execution of sentence on one of the offenses.

2024General Principles Section 654 provides: “An act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision.” (§ 654.) When section 654 applies, a trial court can “impose sentence on all counts, and then stay execution of sentence as necessary to comply with section 654.” (People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1469 (Alford).) “Whether a defendant may be subjected to multiple punishment under section 654 requires a two-step inquiry, bec

2024General Principles Section 654 provides: “An act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision.” (§ 654.) When section 654 applies, a trial court can “impose sentence on all counts, and then stay execution of sentence as necessary to comply with section 654.” (People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1469 (Alford).) “Whether a defendant may be subjected to multiple punishment under section 654 requires a two-step inquiry, bec

2020Section 654, subdivision (a), provides in part, “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.” “Whether a defendant may be subjected to multiple punishment under section 654 requires a two-step inquiry, because the statutory reference to an ‘act or omission’ may include not only a discrete physical act but also a course of conduct encompassing several acts pursued with a

2020Governing law Section 654, subdivision (a), provides in part, “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.” “Whether a defendant may be subjected to multiple punishment under section 654 requires a two-step inquiry, because the statutory reference to an “act or omission” may include not only a discrete physical act but also a course of conduct encompassing several acts p

2024Only if we conclude that the case involves more than a single act—i.e., a course of conduct—do we then consider whether that course of conduct reflects a single ‘ “intent and objective” ’ or multiple intents and objectives. [Citations.] At step one, courts examine the facts of the case to determine whether multiple convictions are based upon a single physical act. [Citation.] When those facts are undisputed . . . the application of section 654 raises a question of law we review de novo.” (People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307 , 311–312.) If the pertinent facts are in dispute, “[i]ntent and

2022Only if we conclude that the case involves more than a single act—i.e., a course of conduct—do we then consider whether that course of 5 conduct reflects a single ‘“intent and objective”’ or multiple intents and objectives. [Citations.]” (People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 311-312 (Corpening).) “‘“‘If all of the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one.’”’ [Citation.]” (People v. Jackson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 269, 354 (Jackson).) “Whether multiple convictions are based upon a single act is determined by exam

2022If all the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one.’” ( Beamon, supra, at p. 637 , quoting Neal v. State of California (1960) 55 Cal.2d 11, 19 , disapproved on other grounds in People v. Correa (2012) 54 Cal.4th 331, 334 ; accord, Perez, supra, at p. 551 .) “Whether a defendant may be subjected to multiple punishment under section 654 requires a two-step inquiry.” (People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 311 .) “At step one, courts examine the facts of the case to determine whether multiple convictions are

2022If all the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one.’” ( Beamon, supra, at p. 637 , quoting Neal v. State of California (1960) 55 Cal.2d 11, 19 , disapproved on other grounds in People v. Correa (2012) 54 Cal.4th 331, 334 ; accord, Perez, supra, at p. 551 .) “Whether a defendant may be subjected to multiple punishment under section 654 requires a two-step inquiry.” (People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 311 .) “At step one, courts examine the facts of the case to determine whether multiple convictions are

2022If all the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one.’” ( Beamon, supra, at p. 637 , quoting Neal v. State of California (1960) 55 Cal.2d 11, 19 , disapproved on other grounds in People v. Correa (2012) 54 Cal.4th 331, 334 ; accord, Perez, supra, at p. 551 .) “Whether a defendant may be subjected to multiple punishment under section 654 requires a two-step inquiry.” (People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 311 .) “At step one, courts examine the facts of the case to determine whether multiple convictions are

2022If all the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one.’” ( Beamon, supra, at p. 637 , quoting Neal v. State of California (1960) 55 Cal.2d 11, 19 , disapproved on other grounds in People v. Correa (2012) 54 Cal.4th 331, 334 ; accord, Perez, supra, at p. 551 .) “Whether a defendant may be subjected to multiple punishment under section 654 requires a two-step inquiry.” (People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 311 .) “At step one, courts examine the facts of the case to determine whether multiple convictions are

2026Legal Principles Section 654 states, in relevant part, “An act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision.” (§ 654, subd. (a).) “[S]ection 654 protects against multiple punishment, not multiple conviction.” (People v. Correa (2012) 54 Cal.4th 331, 336 .) “To avoid double punishment, a sentencing court applying section 654 will impose the sentence for one offense while staying the imposition of the sentence on the other offense.

2024(People v. Correa (2012) 54 Cal.4th 331, 337 .)4 “Whether a defendant may be subjected to multiple punishment under section 654 requires a two-step inquiry, because the statutory reference to an ‘act or omission’ may include not only a discrete physical act but also a course of conduct encompassing several acts pursued with a single objective. [Citations.] We first consider if the different crimes were completed by a ‘single physical act.’ [Citation.] If so, the defendant may not be punished more than once for that act.

2026(See ibid.) Presuming every fact that could reasonably be deduced from the evidence (People v. Jones, supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at p. 1143 ), substantial evidence supports the court’s finding that the course of conduct underlying counts 3 and 4 constituted divisible transactions for purposes of step two of the section 654 analysis.

2026Only if we conclude that the case involves more than a single act—i.e., a course of conduct—do we then consider whether that course of conduct reflects a single ‘ “intent and objective” ’ or multiple intents and objectives.” (People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 311 .) “Section 654 ‘prohibits multiple sentences where the defendant commits different acts that violate different statutes but the acts comprise an indivisible course of conduct engaged in with a single intent and objective.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Latten (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 574 , 577.) “Whether section 654 applies in a given

2026“An act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision.” (§ 654, subd. (a).) Moreover, “because [section 654] is intended to ensure that defendant is punished ‘commensurate with his culpability’ [citation], its protection has been extended to cases in which there are several offenses committed during ‘a course of conduct deemed to be indivisible in time.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 335 .) “Whether a defe

2026“An act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision.” (§ 654, subd. (a).) Moreover, “because [section 654] is intended to ensure that defendant is punished ‘commensurate with his culpability’ [citation], its protection has been extended to cases in which there are several offenses committed during ‘a course of conduct deemed to be indivisible in time.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 335 .) “Whether a defe

2022Only if we conclude that the case involves more than a single act—i.e., a course of conduct—do we then consider whether that course of 5 conduct reflects a single ‘“intent and objective”’ or multiple intents and objectives. [Citations.]” (People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 311-312 (Corpening).) “‘“‘If all of the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one.’”’ [Citation.]” (People v. Jackson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 269, 354 (Jackson).) “Whether multiple convictions are based upon a single act is determined by exam

2021Only if we conclude that the case involves more than a single act—i.e., a course of conduct—do we then consider whether that course of conduct reflects a single ‘ “intent and objective” ’ or multiple intents and objectives.” ( Corpening, supra, at p. 311 .) “Whether multiple convictions are based upon a single act is determined by examining the facts of the case.” (People v. Mesa (2012) 54 Cal.4th 191, 196 .) “A trial court’s express or implied determination that two crimes were separate, involving separate objectives, must be upheld on appeal if supported by substantial evidence.” (People v.

2023(People v. Duff 5. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 787, 796 .) “Whether a defendant may be subjected to multiple punishment under section 654 requires a two-step inquiry, because the statutory reference to an ‘act or omission’ may include not only a discrete physical act but also a course of conduct encompassing several acts pursued with a single objective.” (People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 311 ; see People v. Kopp (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 47, 90 , review granted Nov. 13, 2019, S257844.) The first inquiry is whether the crimes were completed by a single physical act.

2023(People v. Duff (2010) 50 Cal.4th 787, 796 .) “Whether a defendant may be subjected to multiple punishment under section 654 requires a two-step inquiry, because the statutory reference to an ‘act or omission’ may include not only a discrete physical act but also a course of conduct encompassing several acts pursued with a single objective.” (People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 311 ; see People v. Kopp (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 47, 90 .) The first inquiry is whether the crimes were completed by a single physical act.