Does the Attorney General have to stay the accompanying firearm enhancement under section 654 of the Criminal Code?

California, United States of America

The following excerpt is from People v. Fontenot, D074575 (Cal. App. 2019):

Fontenot contends that because the court stayed the sentence for the substantive conviction of count 2 under section 654, it was required to stay the accompanying firearm enhancement. The Attorney General responds with two alternatives: the stay was a clerical error, correctable by the appellate court (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185), or it was an incorrect application of the law, requiring remand for resentencing. (People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1473.) We agree that the court incorrectly applied the law when it stayed the substantive conviction under section 654.

"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Try it today free of charge!

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.

Other Questions

Does the Attorney General's sentencing error under section 667.5, subdivision (a) of the California Criminal Code apply to recidivism enhancements under sections 667 and 667 of the Criminal Code? (California, United States of America)

Does section 667 of the California Criminal Code prohibit the District Attorney from invoking section 654 of the Criminal Code to strike a prior conviction enhancement under Section 667? (California, United States of America)

Can a defendant be found to have committed a single physical act for purposes of section 654 of the California Criminal Code, Section 215 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 422 of the Criminal Code for carjacking? (California, United States of America)

Is a criminal offence punishable by section 654 (a) of the Criminal Code of Ontario's Criminal Code punishable by Section 654, subdivision (a), punishable by the same law, punishable by a different law? (California, United States of America)

Does section 654 of the California Criminal Code apply to enhancements under section 288 of the Criminal Code? (California, United States of America)

Does a court violate section 654 of the California Criminal Code by imposing both a firearm enhancement and a great bodily injury enhancement under section 12022.7, subdivision (a), both at trial? (California, United States of America)

How has section 654 of the California Criminal Code been interpreted in the context of Section 654(1) of the Criminal Code? (California, United States of America)

What are the consequences of section 245, subdivision (a)(1) of the California Criminal Code when it comes to section 2 and 3 of the Criminal Code? (California, United States of America)

Does section 190.3 of the California Criminal Code allow the penalty phase jury to consider the "circumstances" of the crime within the meaning of section 190 of the Criminal Code? (California, United States of America)

Does section 667.6 of the California Criminal Code (c) of Section 654 of the Criminal Code apply to a burglary conviction? (California, United States of America)

Does the Attorney General have to stay the accompanying firearm enhancement under section 654 of the Criminal Code?

"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Other Questions

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.

Company

Product

Resources