holding that section 654(a) of the California Penal Code — which prior to being amended in 1997 contained language identical to that in title 14, section 104 — prohibits multiple punishments based on a single act or an indivisible course of conduct
How later courts described this case
- holding that section 654(a) of the California Penal Code — which prior to being amended in 1997 contained language identical to that in title 14, section 104 — prohibits multiple punishments based on a single act or an indivisible course of conduct
- "stay" serves to comply with prohibition against multiple punishments
- court found reversal of properly stayed count "unnecessary"
- “[W]hen multiple convictions are based on a single act. . . or an indivisible course of conduct, the use of such convictions must not result in the defendant being ‘punished under more than one’ Penal Code provision.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by People v. Vidana, 1 Cal. 5th 632 (2016)
42 Cal.3d 351, 360 , disapproved on other grounds in People v. Vidana (2016) 1 Cal.5th 632, 650-651
Overruled on other grounds by People v. Fields, 13 Cal. 4th 289 (1996)
42 Cal.3d 351, 358 , and overruled on other grounds by People v. Fields (1996) 13 Cal.4th 289, fn. 6
The opinion
LUCAS, J.
I concur in the judgment. Defendant was properly convicted of both statutory sodomy (two counts) and lewd conduct (two counts) for the commission of sodomy on two young children. As the majority observes, the trial court stayed sentence on the sodomy convictions so that defendant would not be punished twice for the same act. (Pen. Code, § 654.)
*364 But I would not issue defendant an advisory opinion on the concededly premature issue as to whether using all these convictions to enhance future sentences would constitute impermissible double punishment. That issue will not arise until defendant has committed, and suffered a conviction for, some future offense for which such an enhancement might be appropriate. What valid purpose is served by assuring defendant that, if he chooses to commit such an offense, his enhanced punishment will not be as severe as he might have feared?
I would simply affirm the judgment.
Respondent’s petition for a rehearing was denied October 2, 1986. Lucas, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.