Can a defendant be punished under section 654 of the California Penal Code for assault and false imprisonment?

Section 654, subdivision (a), provides in relevant 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." As our high court has often recognized, the purpose of this statute " 'is to ensure that a defendant's punishment will be commensurate with his culpability.' " (People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 350, 367.) 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." (People v. Alvarado (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 178, 196.) But where a defendant acts with "multiple criminal objectives that [a]re independent of and not merely incidental to each other, then he may be punished for the independent violations committed in pursuit of each objective even though the violations were parts of an otherwise indivisible course of conduct." (Ibid.)

"Whether section 654 applies in a given case is a question of fact for the trial court, which is vested with broad latitude in making its determination. [Citations.] Its findings will not be reversed on appeal if there is any substantial evidence to support them. [Citations.] We review the trial court's determination in the light most favorable to the respondent and presume the existence of every fact the trial court could reasonably deduce from the evidence." (People v. Jones (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1143.)

Section 273.5 " 'contemplates a continuous course of conduct of a series of acts over a period of time.' " (People v. Lueth (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 189, 198.)

Page 9

Accordingly, even though the acts constituting the corporal injury on an intimate partner count involved distinct incidents separated by the victim sleeping after the first attack, they are still part of one continuous course of conduct. While the act of false imprisonmentdefendant pinning the victim on the bed by putting his forearm on her throatwas committed during the course of the domestic violence offense, there is substantial evidence to support an independent criminal objective. The trial court could have reasonably concluded that defendant's criminal objective for the corporal injury on an intimate partner count was to inflict physical harm on the victim out of jealousy and anger, while defendant falsely imprisoned her to prevent her from leaving. The court could have also reasonably concluded that any violent act that might also be part of restraining her, such as defendant choking her, was a gratuitous act of violence separate from the restraint necessary to accomplish the false imprisonment. Section 654 "cannot, and should not, be stretched to cover gratuitous violence or other criminal acts far beyond those reasonably necessary to accomplish the original offense." (People v. Nguyen (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 181, 191.) Such is the case here. Since substantial evidence supports a finding of separate objectives for the domestic violence and false imprisonment counts, a section 654 stay was not required.

Page 10

The judgment is affirmed.

s/MURRAY, J.

We concur:

s/BLEASE, Acting P. J.

s/RENNER, J.

Footnotes:

^1. Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code in effect at the time of the charged offenses.