California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Pleitez, B255949 (Cal. App. 2015):
However, this does not end our analysis. As noted, section 654, subdivision (a), bars multiple punishments for separate offenses arising out of a single occurrence where all were incident to an indivisible course of conduct or a single objective. (People v. Calderon, supra, 214 Cal.App.4th at p. 661.) If all the offenses were merely incidental to, or were the means of accomplishing one objective, the defendant may be found to have harbored a single intent and therefore may be punished only once. (People v. Capistrano (2014) 59 Cal.4th 830, 885; People v. Jones (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1143.) If the defendant harbored multiple or simultaneous objectives, independent of and not merely incidental to each other, he or she may be punished for each violation committed in pursuit of each objective even though the violations share common acts or
Page 11
were parts of an otherwise indivisible course of conduct. (People v. Jones, supra, at p. 1143.) Whether section 654 applies is a question of fact for the trial court, and its findings will be upheld if there is substantial evidence to support them. (People v. Kurtenbach (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1289; People v. Jones, supra, at p. 1143.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.