Does Section 654 of the Criminal Code apply to a conviction for possession of a loaded and operable firearm by a convicted felon?

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's implied finding, we find no basis to conclude that defendant's conduct underlying his convictions for possession of a controlled substance while armed with a loaded and operable firearm and possession of a firearm by a felon involved a divisible course of criminal conduct. The record reflects that defendant, a felon, possessed methamphetamine and a handgun together in his motel room, and was convicted of each crime due to being caught with the handgun and methamphetamine in the motel room, not due to any antecedent possession of the handgun. The amended information alleged defendant committed the charged crimes on or around September 8, 2014, and the verdicts found defendant guilty as charged. In closing argument, the prosecutor argued that defendant was guilty of the charged crimes by possessing methamphetamine and a handgun in the motel room on the date of the search. Although the prosecutor mentioned that there was evidence presented at trial showing that defendant had possessed a handgun prior to the date of the search, the prosecutor made this argument to bolster the theory that defendant knowingly possessed the handgun in the motel room, not to base liability on such possession. Thus, the record supports only the conclusion that the crimes of possessing a controlled substance while armed with a loaded and operable firearm and possessing a firearm by a felon were part of an indivisible course of conduct. Section 654, therefore, precludes imposition of an unstayed sentence on defendant's possession of a firearm by a felon conviction. (See People v. Jones, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 359.) Accordingly, the trial court erred in failing to stay execution of the sentence on that conviction.