Is a court wrong to impose a concurrent sentence on a shooting at an occupied vehicle conviction pursuant to section 654 of the California Criminal Code?

The trial court chose the shooting at an occupied vehicle conviction ( 246) as the principal term and imposed a concurrent term for the voluntary manslaughter conviction ( 192, subd. (a)). Dydouangphan argues the trial court erred when it failed to stay the punishment for the voluntary manslaughter conviction pursuant to section 654. Imposition of concurrent sentences is incorrect if section 654 prohibits multiple punishment, even though there is no practical difference between the two approaches. (People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 350, 353 (Jones).) Instead, the correct approach is to stay the sentence on the count for which punishment is precluded. (Ibid.)

Section 654, subdivision (a) states that an act "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." It is well settled that this subdivision concerns only multiple punishment, not multiple convictions. (People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 335.)

The last phrase of section 654, subdivision (a) is at issue here. On its face, it prohibits punishing one action multiple times. "In Neal [v. State of California (1960)] 55 Cal.2d 11 [(Neal)] the court added a 'gloss' to section 654 that has been a subject of continuing controversy and given rise to much confusion." (People v. Correa (2012) 54

Page 9