Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
40 California opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2026 23 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Centersgreen2 sentences2022(See People v. Centers (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 84, 101 ; People v. Nguyen (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 181, 190 .) In such a case, “the trial court is entitled to make any necessary factual findings not already made by the jury.” (People v. Centers, at p. 101.) 8 We question whether the right to a jury trial is implicated by a sentencing decision under section 654. 2019(See People v. Centers (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 84 , 100-101, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 151 [for purposes of applying section 654, trial court could properly make factual finding that there were multiple victims where neither the information nor the verdicts specified a particular victim of the burglary].) The jury's "not true" finding is not a circumstance which prevents the trial court from considering " any of the facts that are in evidence at trial, without regard to the verdicts." ( McCoy , supra , 208 Cal.App.4th at p. 1340 , 146 Cal.Rptr.3d 469 .) Carter contends we can discern the factual basis unde | 2 | 4 |
People v. Perezgreen2 sentences2024(People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354, fn. 17 [“It is well settled . . . that the court acts in ‘excess of its jurisdiction’ and imposes an ‘unauthorized’ sentence when it erroneously stays or fails to stay execution of a sentence under section 654. [Citations.]”]; People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 549, fn. 3 [“[T]he waiver doctrine does not apply to questions involving the applicability of section 654. 2015Section 654 Finally, Smith argues he was improperly sentenced for both lewd conduct and unlawful sexual intercourse in violation of section 654 as both convictions involved the same act, the same victim and the same objective of sexual gratification.4 4 Before addressing the substance of Smith’s claim of sentencing error under section 654, the People briefly argue that the claim is forfeited as it was not raised in his (continued) 11 Section 654 provides in part, “(a) An act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law shall be punished under the provision th | 2 | 3 |
People v. Capistranored2 sentences2019A. Section 654 Section 654, subdivision (a), provides that "[a]n act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law shall be punished *841 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." " '[T]he purpose of section 654"is to insure that a defendant's punishment will be commensurate with his culpability." ' " ( People v. Capistrano (2014) 59 Cal.4th 830 , 886, 176 Cal.Rptr.3d 27 , 331 P.3d 201 ( Capistrano ), overruled on other grounds by People 2019A. Section 654 Section 654, subdivision (a), provides that "[a]n act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law shall be punished *841 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." " '[T]he purpose of section 654"is to insure that a defendant's punishment will be commensurate with his culpability." ' " ( People v. Capistrano (2014) 59 Cal.4th 830 , 886, 176 Cal.Rptr.3d 27 , 331 P.3d 201 ( Capistrano ), overruled on other grounds by People | 2 | 3 |
People v. Buycksgreen2 sentences2026(People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893 [remand for full resentencing required where part of sentence is stricken on review].) II Washington next raises two sentencing issues under section 654. 2026(People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893 [remand for full resentencing required where part of sentence is stricken on review].) II Washington next raises two sentencing issues under section 654. | 2 | 2 |
People v. McCoygreen2 sentences2026(People v. McCoy, supra, 208 Cal.App.4th at p. 1340 , italics omitted.) For the purposes of sentencing under section 654, we review the trial court’s decision for substantial evidence. 2023(Alvarez, supra, 178 Cal.App.4th at p. 1007 ; see also People v. McCoy (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1340 [in absence of circumstance foreclosing trial court’s sentencing discretion, i.e., where specific factual basis for jury’s conviction can be identified, court may base its sentencing decision under section 654 on any facts in evidence at trial, without regard to verdicts].) Thus, substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that the acts in counts 12 and 14 involved distinct sexual objectives from the oral copulation charged in counts 13 and 15. | 1 | 6 |
People v. Colemangreen2 sentences2015Section 654 Finally, Smith argues he was improperly sentenced for both lewd conduct and unlawful sexual intercourse in violation of section 654 as both convictions involved the same act, the same victim and the same objective of sexual gratification.4 4 Before addressing the substance of Smith’s claim of sentencing error under section 654, the People briefly argue that the claim is forfeited as it was not raised in his (continued) 11 Section 654 provides in part, “(a) An act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law shall be punished under the provision th 2001(See, e.g., People v. Coleman (1989) 48 Cal.3d 112, 162 [ 255 Cal.Rptr. 813 , 768 P.2d 32 ].) “In sentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 654, the trial court retains discretion to impose punishment for the offense that it determines, under the facts of the case, constituted the defendant’s ‘primary objective’ ” keeping in mind the overall purpose of section 654. | 1 | 2 |
Erlinger v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2026He relies on the Sixth Amendment principle, set forth in Apprendi v. New Jersey and its progeny, that, with limited exceptions, “any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, 490 (Apprendi); accord, Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821, 834 (Erlinger).) According to appellant, the section 654 factual findings were subject to that principle because they “had the effect of altering [his] maximum authorized sentencing exposure.” Sectio | 1 | 1 |
Apprendi v. New Jerseygreen1 sentence2026He relies on the Sixth Amendment principle, set forth in Apprendi v. New Jersey and its progeny, that, with limited exceptions, “any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, 490 (Apprendi); accord, Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821, 834 (Erlinger).) According to appellant, the section 654 factual findings were subject to that principle because they “had the effect of altering [his] maximum authorized sentencing exposure.” Sectio | 1 | 1 |
People v. Corpeninggreen1 sentence2026He relies on the Sixth Amendment principle, set forth in Apprendi v. New Jersey and its progeny, that, with limited exceptions, “any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, 490 (Apprendi); accord, Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821, 834 (Erlinger).) According to appellant, the section 654 factual findings were subject to that principle because they “had the effect of altering [his] maximum authorized sentencing exposure.” Sectio | 1 | 1 |
People v. Vasquezgreen1 sentence2026(People v. Vasquez, supra, 44 Cal.App.5th at p. 737.) Here, the court impliedly found defendant renewed his criminal objective between the sexual battery and corporal injury offenses. | 1 | 1 |
Rufo v. Simpsongreen1 sentence2026(See Rufo v. Simpson (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 573, 614 [“In reviewing a claim of insufficiency of evidence, the appellate court must consider the whole record, view the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, presume every fact the trier of fact could reasonably deduce from the evidence, and defer to the trier of fact’s determination of the weight and credibility of the evidence.”].) Penal Code Section 654 As recommended in the probation sentencing report, the court stayed four of appellant’s convictions at sentencing pursuant to section 654. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Scottgreen1 sentence2024(People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354, fn. 17 [“It is well settled . . . that the court acts in ‘excess of its jurisdiction’ and imposes an ‘unauthorized’ sentence when it erroneously stays or fails to stay execution of a sentence under section 654. [Citations.]”]; People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 549, fn. 3 [“[T]he waiver doctrine does not apply to questions involving the applicability of section 654. | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Jonesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Valenzuelagreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Gersongreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. O'KEEFEgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Mejiagreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Greengreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Sloangreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Norrellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Swansongreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Venegasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Chapmangreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Floresgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Hester
green
2 sentences2023(People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 295 .) The People do not argue otherwise. 2021B Section 654, subdivision (a) generally prohibits the imposition of multiple punishments for offenses arising out of a single act or indivisible course of conduct.3 (§ 654, subd. (a); People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 294 .) “ ‘Whether a course of criminal conduct is divisible and therefore gives rise to more than one act within the meaning of section 654 depends on the intent and objective of the actor. | 4 | 2019–2023 |
People v. Tarris
green
2 sentences2025(People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1468 ; People v. Tarris (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 612, 626 .) We must uphold the implied finding if substantial evidence supports it. ( Hicks, supra, 17 Cal.App.5th at pp. 514–515; People v. Blake (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 509, 512 .) Substantial evidence supports a finding that Morales had separate (albeit related) intents or objectives in committing the two crimes of which the jury found him guilty. 2020Thus, even though the violations were part of an otherwise indivisible course of conduct in that they occurred during one night, it was within the trial court’s discretion to impose consecutive sentences.” (Ibid.; see also People v. O’Keefe (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 517, 522 [section 654 did not bar multiple punishments for burglaries of several dormitory rooms in same building because “entry into each room was separate and divisible conduct”].) In our review of a sentencing claim under section 654 where the trial court made no explicit ruling as to the application of section 654, “we infer that t | 3 | 2019–2025 |
People v. Hardy
green
2 sentences2019A. Section 654 Section 654, subdivision (a), provides that "[a]n act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law shall be punished *841 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." " '[T]he purpose of section 654"is to insure that a defendant's punishment will be commensurate with his culpability." ' " ( People v. Capistrano (2014) 59 Cal.4th 830 , 886, 176 Cal.Rptr.3d 27 , 331 P.3d 201 ( Capistrano ), overruled on other grounds by People 2019A. Section 654 Section 654, subdivision (a), provides that "[a]n act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law shall be punished *841 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." " '[T]he purpose of section 654"is to insure that a defendant's punishment will be commensurate with his culpability." ' " ( People v. Capistrano (2014) 59 Cal.4th 830 , 886, 176 Cal.Rptr.3d 27 , 331 P.3d 201 ( Capistrano ), overruled on other grounds by People | 3 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Alford
green
2 sentences2025(People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1468 ; People v. Tarris (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 612, 626 .) We must uphold the implied finding if substantial evidence supports it. ( Hicks, supra, 17 Cal.App.5th at pp. 514–515; People v. Blake (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 509, 512 .) Substantial evidence supports a finding that Morales had separate (albeit related) intents or objectives in committing the two crimes of which the jury found him guilty. 2025(People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1472 .) However, here, the record clearly reflects what that term would have been. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Jones
green
2 sentences2023(People v. Jones (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1147 .) Here, there was no discussion at sentencing of section 654. 2022(People v. Jones (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1147 .) Here, there was no discussion at sentencing of section 654. | 2 | 2022–2023 |
People v. Tom Cheng Hsang Liu
green
2 sentences2022If a single action or course of conduct by a defendant violates multiple laws, “the distinct crimes may be charged in separate counts and may result in multiple verdicts of guilt, [but] the trial court may impose sentence for only one offense.” (People v. Liu (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1135 .) Until recently, the law required trial courts to impose sentence “under the provision that provides for the longest potential term of imprisonment.” (Former § 654.) In 2021, however, the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill No. 518 (Stats. 2021, ch. 441), which removes the requirement to impose the longest 2022If a single action or course of conduct by a defendant violates multiple laws, “the distinct crimes may be charged in separate counts and may result in multiple verdicts of guilt, [but] the trial court may impose sentence for only one offense.” (People v. Liu (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1135 .) Until recently, the law required trial courts to impose sentence “under the provision that provides for the longest potential term of imprisonment.” (Former § 654.) In 2021, however, the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill No. 518 (Stats. 2021, ch. 441), which removes the requirement to impose the longest | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Neal v. State of California
yellow
2 sentences2001(See, e.g., People v. Coleman (1989) 48 Cal.3d 112, 162 , 255 Cal.Rptr. 813 , 768 P.2d 32 .) "In sentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 654, the trial court retains discretion to impose punishment for the offense that it determines, under the facts of the case, constituted the defendant's `primary objective'" keeping in mind the overall purpose of section 654. ( People v. Norrell (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1, 6 , 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 429 , 913 P.2d 458 .) "[T]he protection against multiple punishment is to insure that the defendant's punishment will be commensurate with his criminal liability." ( Neal v. 2001(See, e.g., People v. Coleman (1989) 48 Cal.3d 112, 162 , 255 Cal.Rptr. 813 , 768 P.2d 32 .) "In sentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 654, the trial court retains discretion to impose punishment for the offense that it determines, under the facts of the case, constituted the defendant's `primary objective'" keeping in mind the overall purpose of section 654. ( People v. Norrell (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1, 6 , 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 429 , 913 P.2d 458 .) "[T]he protection against multiple punishment is to insure that the defendant's punishment will be commensurate with his criminal liability." ( Neal v. | 2 | 1996–2001 |
People v. Rodriguez
green
1 sentence2026If 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.’ ” (People v. Rodriguez (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1000, 1005 .) “ ‘If, on the other hand, defendant harbored “multiple criminal objectives,” which were independent of and not merely incidental to each other, he may be punished for each statutory violation committed in pursuit of each objective, “even though the violations shared common acts or were parts of an otherwise indivisible course of conduct.” ’ ” (Ibid.) As there was no discussion at sentencing of s | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Osband
green
1 sentence2026(See People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622 , 730-731.) Quay asks us to stay the sentences on his misdemeanor offenses under section 654. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Hicks
green
1 sentence2025(People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1468 ; People v. Tarris (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 612, 626 .) We must uphold the implied finding if substantial evidence supports it. ( Hicks, supra, 17 Cal.App.5th at pp. 514–515; People v. Blake (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 509, 512 .) Substantial evidence supports a finding that Morales had separate (albeit related) intents or objectives in committing the two crimes of which the jury found him guilty. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Reynolds
green
1 sentence2025(See People v. Reynolds (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 796, 811 .) Here, the trial court did not articulate which framework it had selected, nor whether the conduct alleged here met the requirements for consecutive sentencing under section 654 or section 667.6(c). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Caparaz
green
1 sentence2025(Compare People v. Govan (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1015 , 1031–1033, with People v. Bolanos (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 1069 , 1086, review granted Apr. 12, 2023, S278803, and People v. Caparaz (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 669 , 689.) Section 654 has been held inapplicable to provisions of a similar sentencing scheme, section 667.6, which also provides for harsher punishment of certain sex crimes (including § 288, subd. (b)). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Islas
green
1 sentence2025(People v. Islas (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 116, 129 .) We must uphold the implied finding if substantial evidence supports it. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Trotter
green
1 sentence2025(People v. Trotter (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 363 , 367–368.) 5 When, as here, no reference is made to section 654 at the sentencing hearing, the trial court’s imposition of separate prison terms is deemed an implied finding that each crime had a separate intent or objective. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Bolanos
green
1 sentence2025(Compare People v. Govan (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1015 , 1031–1033, with People v. Bolanos (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 1069 , 1086, review granted Apr. 12, 2023, S278803, and People v. Caparaz (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 669 , 689.) Section 654 has been held inapplicable to provisions of a similar sentencing scheme, section 667.6, which also provides for harsher punishment of certain sex crimes (including § 288, subd. (b)). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Govan
green
1 sentence2025(Compare People v. Govan (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1015 , 1031–1033, with People v. Bolanos (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 1069 , 1086, review granted Apr. 12, 2023, S278803, and People v. Caparaz (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 669 , 689.) Section 654 has been held inapplicable to provisions of a similar sentencing scheme, section 667.6, which also provides for harsher punishment of certain sex crimes (including § 288, subd. (b)). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Blake
green
1 sentence2025(People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1468 ; People v. Tarris (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 612, 626 .) We must uphold the implied finding if substantial evidence supports it. ( Hicks, supra, 17 Cal.App.5th at pp. 514–515; People v. Blake (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 509, 512 .) Substantial evidence supports a finding that Morales had separate (albeit related) intents or objectives in committing the two crimes of which the jury found him guilty. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Harrison
green
2 sentences2024Counsel may have concluded that the prosecutor’s challenged statements regarding defendant’s enjoyment in shooting and “hunting” his victims was a fair comment on the evidence at trial which demonstrated that he shot or shot at numerous people and he followed Federico Lizarraga and Maria Galido before shooting at them (we set forth the facts of that shooting below in our discussion of defendant’s section 654 error claim) (People v. Harrison, supra, 35 Cal.4th 208 at pp. 243–245) and did not concern defendant’s race. 2024Counsel may have concluded that the prosecutor’s challenged statements regarding defendant’s enjoyment in shooting and “hunting” his victims was a fair comment on the evidence at trial which demonstrated that he shot or shot at numerous people and he followed Federico Lizarraga and Maria Galido before shooting at them (we set forth the facts of that shooting below in our discussion of defendant’s section 654 error claim) (People v. Harrison, supra, 35 Cal.4th 208 at pp. 243–245) and did not concern defendant’s race. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| People v. Alvarez green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| People v. Nguyen red | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| People v. Lopez green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| People v. Beamon red | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| People v. Jones green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| People v. Sok green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| People v. Valli green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| People v. Coelho green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| People v. Cleveland green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| People v. Buttram green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| People v. Latimer green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| People v. Samuel B. red | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| In Re Henry green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| People v. Ridley green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.