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.
25 California opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2026 12 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. Scottgreen2 sentences2026Such offenses are generally ‘divisible’ from one another under section 654, and separate punishment is usually allowed.” (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 344, fn. 6 .) “Even where the defendant has but one objective—sexual gratification—section 654 will not apply unless the crimes were either incidental to or the means by which another crime was accomplished.” 7 The trial court sentenced defendant to an additional eight months for an unrelated charge. 10 (People v. Alvarez (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 999, 1006 (Alvarez).) Consequently, section 654 has “limited utility to defendants who commit 2025Such offenses are generally “divisible” from one another under section 654, and separate punishment is usually allowed.’ ” (People v. Alvarez (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 999, 1006 ; see also People v. Patton (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 922 , 930 [citing Harrison, supra, 48 Cal.3d at pp. 337–338 & People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545 , 550–553]; People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331 , 346–348.) “ ‘Ordinarily, in determining whether Penal Code section 654 applies, the trial court is entitled to make any necessary factual findings not already made by the jury.’ [Citations.] . . . ‘[I]n the absence of some c | 17 | 19 |
People v. Alvarezgreen2 sentences2026Such offenses are generally ‘divisible’ from one another under section 654, and separate punishment is usually allowed.” (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 344, fn. 6 .) “Even where the defendant has but one objective—sexual gratification—section 654 will not apply unless the crimes were either incidental to or the means by which another crime was accomplished.” 7 The trial court sentenced defendant to an additional eight months for an unrelated charge. 10 (People v. Alvarez (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 999, 1006 (Alvarez).) Consequently, section 654 has “limited utility to defendants who commit 2026Such offenses are generally ‘divisible’ from one another under section 654, and separate punishment is usually allowed.” (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 344, fn. 6 .) “Even where the defendant has but one objective—sexual gratification—section 654 will not apply unless the crimes were either incidental to or the means by which another crime was accomplished.” 7 The trial court sentenced defendant to an additional eight months for an unrelated charge. 10 (People v. Alvarez (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 999, 1006 (Alvarez).) Consequently, section 654 has “limited utility to defendants who commit | 5 | 10 |
People v. Perezgreen2 sentences2025Such offenses are generally “divisible” from one another under section 654, and separate punishment is usually allowed.’ ” (People v. Alvarez (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 999, 1006 ; see also People v. Patton (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 922 , 930 [citing Harrison, supra, 48 Cal.3d at pp. 337–338 & People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545 , 550–553]; People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331 , 346–348.) “ ‘Ordinarily, in determining whether Penal Code section 654 applies, the trial court is entitled to make any necessary factual findings not already made by the jury.’ [Citations.] . . . ‘[I]n the absence of some c 1994(See, e.g., People v. Hicks (1993) 6 Cal.4th 784 , 788 & fn. 4 [ 25 Cal. Rptr.2d 469 , 863 P.2d 714 ]; Harrison, supra, 48 Cal.3d 321, 335-338 ; People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 552-554 [ 153 Cal. Rptr. 40 , 591 P.2d 63 ]; People v. Hicks (1965) 63 Cal.2d 764, 766 [ 48 Cal. Rptr. 139 , 408 P.2d 747 ].) [7] We recognize that a few cases have rejected the notion that "any" touching of an underage child with the requisite intent violates section 288. | 3 | 3 |
People v. Harrisongreen2 sentences2025Such offenses are generally “divisible” from one another under section 654, and separate punishment is usually allowed.’ ” (People v. Alvarez (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 999, 1006 ; see also People v. Patton (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 922 , 930 [citing Harrison, supra, 48 Cal.3d at pp. 337–338 & People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545 , 550–553]; People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331 , 346–348.) “ ‘Ordinarily, in determining whether Penal Code section 654 applies, the trial court is entitled to make any necessary factual findings not already made by the jury.’ [Citations.] . . . ‘[I]n the absence of some c 2025Such offenses are generally “divisible” from one another under section 654, and separate punishment is usually allowed.’ ” (People v. Alvarez (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 999, 1006 ; see also People v. Patton (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 922 , 930 [citing Harrison, supra, 48 Cal.3d at pp. 337–338 & People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545 , 550–553]; People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331 , 346–348.) “ ‘Ordinarily, in determining whether Penal Code section 654 applies, the trial court is entitled to make any necessary factual findings not already made by the jury.’ [Citations.] . . . ‘[I]n the absence of some c | 2 | 8 |
People v. Hicksgreen2 sentences1994(See, e.g., People v. Hicks (1993) 6 Cal.4th 784 , 788 & fn. 4 [ 25 Cal. Rptr.2d 469 , 863 P.2d 714 ]; Harrison, supra, 48 Cal.3d 321, 335-338 ; People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 552-554 [ 153 Cal. Rptr. 40 , 591 P.2d 63 ]; People v. Hicks (1965) 63 Cal.2d 764, 766 [ 48 Cal. Rptr. 139 , 408 P.2d 747 ].) [7] We recognize that a few cases have rejected the notion that "any" touching of an underage child with the requisite intent violates section 288. 1994(See, e.g., People v. Hicks (1993) 6 Cal.4th 784 , 788 & fn. 4 [ 25 Cal. Rptr.2d 469 , 863 P.2d 714 ]; Harrison, supra, 48 Cal.3d 321, 335-338 ; People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 552-554 [ 153 Cal. Rptr. 40 , 591 P.2d 63 ]; People v. Hicks (1965) 63 Cal.2d 764, 766 [ 48 Cal. Rptr. 139 , 408 P.2d 747 ].) [7] We recognize that a few cases have rejected the notion that "any" touching of an underage child with the requisite intent violates section 288. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2025Such offenses are generally “divisible” from one another under section 654, and separate punishment is usually allowed.’” (Italics added.) The divisibility of multiple crimes is determined by the trial court, “which is vested with broad latitude in making its determination.” (People v. Jones (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1143 .) “If the court makes no express findings on the issue, as happened here, a finding that the crimes were divisible is implicit in the judgment and must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence.” (People v. Lopez (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 698, 717 .) Defendant alleges c 2025Such offenses are generally ‘divisible’ from one another under section 654, and separate punishment is usually allowed.” (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 344, fn. 6 .) The divisibility of multiple crimes is determined by the trial court, “which is vested with broad latitude in making [this] determination.” (People v. Jones (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1143 .) Its findings will not be reversed on appeal if there is any substantial evidence to support those findings. | 1 | 3 |
People v. Castrogreen2 sentences2025If 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. Correa (2012) 54 Cal.4th 331 , 335–336.) “[S]ection 654 does not bar multiple punishment simply because numerous sex offenses are rapidly committed against a victim with the ‘sole’ aim of achieving sexual gratification.” (People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 325 .) “Such offenses are generally ‘divisible’ from one another under section 654, and separate punishment is usually allowed.” (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 344, fn. 6 .) I 2025If 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. Correa (2012) 54 Cal.4th 331, 335-336 .) “[S]ection 654 does not bar multiple punishment simply because numerous sex offenses are rapidly committed against a victim with the ‘sole’ aim of achieving sexual gratification.” 12 (People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 325 .) “Such offenses are generally ‘divisible’ from one another under section 654, and separate punishment is usually allowed.” (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, | 1 | 2 |
People v. Pattongreen1 sentence2025Such offenses are generally “divisible” from one another under section 654, and separate punishment is usually allowed.’ ” (People v. Alvarez (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 999, 1006 ; see also People v. Patton (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 922 , 930 [citing Harrison, supra, 48 Cal.3d at pp. 337–338 & People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545 , 550–553]; People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331 , 346–348.) “ ‘Ordinarily, in determining whether Penal Code section 654 applies, the trial court is entitled to make any necessary factual findings not already made by the jury.’ [Citations.] . . . ‘[I]n the absence of some c | 1 | 1 |
People v. Corpeninggreen2 sentences2025Such offenses are generally “divisible” from one another under section 654, and separate punishment is usually allowed.’ ” (People v. Alvarez (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 999, 1006 ; see also People v. Patton (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 922 , 930 [citing Harrison, supra, 48 Cal.3d at pp. 337–338 & People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545 , 550–553]; People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331 , 346–348.) “ ‘Ordinarily, in determining whether Penal Code section 654 applies, the trial court is entitled to make any necessary factual findings not already made by the jury.’ [Citations.] . . . ‘[I]n the absence of some c 2025Such offenses are generally “divisible” from one another under section 654, and separate punishment is usually allowed.’ ” (People v. Alvarez (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 999, 1006 ; see also People v. Patton (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 922 , 930 [citing Harrison, supra, 48 Cal.3d at pp. 337–338 & People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545 , 550–553]; People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331 , 346–348.) “ ‘Ordinarily, in determining whether Penal Code section 654 applies, the trial court is entitled to make any necessary factual findings not already made by the jury.’ [Citations.] . . . ‘[I]n the absence of some c | 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. Vang
green
2 sentences2025If 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. Correa (2012) 54 Cal.4th 331 , 335–336.) “[S]ection 654 does not bar multiple punishment simply because numerous sex offenses are rapidly committed against a victim with the ‘sole’ aim of achieving sexual gratification.” (People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 325 .) “Such offenses are generally ‘divisible’ from one another under section 654, and separate punishment is usually allowed.” (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 344, fn. 6 .) I 2023(People v. Vang (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 912 , 915-916.) The trial court’s ruling will not be reversed if there is any substantial evidence to support it. | 2 | 2023–2025 |
People v. Correa
green
2 sentences2025If 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. Correa (2012) 54 Cal.4th 331 , 335–336.) “[S]ection 654 does not bar multiple punishment simply because numerous sex offenses are rapidly committed against a victim with the ‘sole’ aim of achieving sexual gratification.” (People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 325 .) “Such offenses are generally ‘divisible’ from one another under section 654, and separate punishment is usually allowed.” (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 344, fn. 6 .) I 2025If 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. Correa (2012) 54 Cal.4th 331, 335-336 .) “[S]ection 654 does not bar multiple punishment simply because numerous sex offenses are rapidly committed against a victim with the ‘sole’ aim of achieving sexual gratification.” 12 (People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 325 .) “Such offenses are generally ‘divisible’ from one another under section 654, and separate punishment is usually allowed.” (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, | 2 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Hicks
green
2 sentences1994(See, e.g., People v. Hicks (1993) 6 Cal.4th 784 , 788 & fn. 4 [ 25 Cal. Rptr.2d 469 , 863 P.2d 714 ]; Harrison, supra, 48 Cal.3d 321, 335-338 ; People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 552-554 [ 153 Cal. Rptr. 40 , 591 P.2d 63 ]; People v. Hicks (1965) 63 Cal.2d 764, 766 [ 48 Cal. Rptr. 139 , 408 P.2d 747 ].) [7] We recognize that a few cases have rejected the notion that "any" touching of an underage child with the requisite intent violates section 288. 1994(See, e.g., People v. Hicks (1993) 6 Cal.4th 784 , 788 & fn. 4 [ 25 Cal. Rptr.2d 469 , 863 P.2d 714 ]; Harrison, supra, 48 Cal.3d 321, 335-338 ; People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 552-554 [ 153 Cal. Rptr. 40 , 591 P.2d 63 ]; People v. Hicks (1965) 63 Cal.2d 764, 766 [ 48 Cal. Rptr. 139 , 408 P.2d 747 ].) [7] We recognize that a few cases have rejected the notion that "any" touching of an underage child with the requisite intent violates section 288. | 2 | 1994–1994 |
People v. Hicks
green
1 sentence2026Such offenses are generally ‘divisible’ from one another under section 654, and separate punishment is usually allowed.” (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 344, fn. 6 .) “Even where the defendant has but one objective—sexual gratification—section 654 will not apply unless the crimes were either incidental to or the means by which another crime was accomplished.” 7 The trial court sentenced defendant to an additional eight months for an unrelated charge. 10 (People v. Alvarez (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 999, 1006 (Alvarez).) Consequently, section 654 has “limited utility to defendants who commit | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Shields
green
1 sentence2025Such offenses are generally ‘divisible’ from one another under section 654, and separate punishment is usually allowed.” (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 344, fn. 6 .) “ ‘[S]ection 311.4 is part of a statutory scheme “ ‘to combat the exploitive use of children in the production of pornography.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Shields (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 323, 332 .) It “ ‘ “prohibits the employment or use of a minor . . . in the production of material depicting that minor in ‘sexual conduct.’ ” ’ ” (Ibid.) The Legislature was “particularly concerned” about sexual visual displays of children in videot | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Lopez
green
1 sentence2025Such offenses are generally “divisible” from one another under section 654, and separate punishment is usually allowed.’” (Italics added.) The divisibility of multiple crimes is determined by the trial court, “which is vested with broad latitude in making its determination.” (People v. Jones (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1143 .) “If the court makes no express findings on the issue, as happened here, a finding that the crimes were divisible is implicit in the judgment and must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence.” (People v. Lopez (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 698, 717 .) Defendant alleges c | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Deegan
green
1 sentence2025Such offenses are generally “divisible” from one another under section 654, and separate punishment is usually allowed.’ ” (People v. Alvarez (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 999, 1006 ; see also People v. Patton (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 922 , 930 [citing Harrison, supra, 48 Cal.3d at pp. 337–338 & People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545 , 550–553]; People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331 , 346–348.) “ ‘Ordinarily, in determining whether Penal Code section 654 applies, the trial court is entitled to make any necessary factual findings not already made by the jury.’ [Citations.] . . . ‘[I]n the absence of some c | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. DeVaughn CA4/2
green
1 sentence2025Such offenses are generally “divisible” from one another under section 654, and separate punishment is usually allowed.’ ” (People v. Alvarez (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 999, 1006 ; see also People v. Patton (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 922 , 930 [citing Harrison, supra, 48 Cal.3d at pp. 337–338 & People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545 , 550–553]; People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331 , 346–348.) “ ‘Ordinarily, in determining whether Penal Code section 654 applies, the trial court is entitled to make any necessary factual findings not already made by the jury.’ [Citations.] . . . ‘[I]n the absence of some c | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Venegas
green
1 sentence2025(People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622 , 730–731; People v. Brents (2012) 53 Cal.4th 599, 618 .) “This standard of review is exceedingly deferential.” (People v. Venegas (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 32 , 38; see also People v. Jones (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1143 (Jones).) 16 3. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Osband
green
1 sentence2025(People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622 , 730–731; People v. Brents (2012) 53 Cal.4th 599, 618 .) “This standard of review is exceedingly deferential.” (People v. Venegas (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 32 , 38; see also People v. Jones (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1143 (Jones).) 16 3. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Brents
green
1 sentence2025(People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622 , 730–731; People v. Brents (2012) 53 Cal.4th 599, 618 .) “This standard of review is exceedingly deferential.” (People v. Venegas (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 32 , 38; see also People v. Jones (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1143 (Jones).) 16 3. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
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.