California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Ritchie, B271324 (Cal. App. 2017):
The same cannot be said for the two criminal threats counts. Characterizing the course of conduct in sending the two e-mails on April 9 as "divisible in time" and involving "two separate volitional and calculated acts," respondent argues that the trial court was not required to stay the sentence on count 9. But respondent fails to articulate any basis for concluding that the two criminal threats against the same victim did not share an identical intent or objective. That being so, appellant could be punished for only one of the criminal threats, and section 654 precluded a concurrent sentence on count 9. (See People v. Latimer (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1203, 1208.)
B. Respondent may not challenge the trial court's imposition of sentence under section 646.9, subdivision (a) on appeal
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.