How has section 654 of the California Penal Code been interpreted and interpreted by the courts?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Jones, A152216 (Cal. App. 2018):
Jones argues that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing a consecutive sentence on the possession of ammunition count because the two possession crimes had the same objective, were dependent on one another, and occurred at the same time and place. For much the same reasons given above in connection with the discussion of section 654, we disagree. As noted, there was substantial evidence in the record from which the trial court could permissibly conclude that the two possession crimes were separate. The trial court's decision did not "exceed the bounds of reason." (People v. Bradford, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 20.)
The judgment is affirmed.
Page 11
/s/_________
Richman, Acting P.J.
We concur:
/s/_________
Stewart, J.
/s/_________
Miller, J.
Footnotes:
1. Subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2. On the prosecution's motion, the receiving stolen property charge was reduced to a misdemeanor.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
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.
