Is Section 654 of the California Criminal Code applicable to a convicted felon who drives into the home of his ex-girlfriend's ex-partner's house while still in possession of a firearm?

"Section 654 precludes multiple punishments for a single act or indivisible course of conduct." (People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 294.) "It is defendant's intent and objective, not the temporal proximity of his offenses, which determine whether the transaction is indivisible. [Citations.] We have traditionally observed that if all of the

Page 27

offenses were merely incidental to, or were the means of accomplishing or facilitating one objective, defendant may be found to have harbored a single intent and therefore may be punished only once. [Citation.] [] If, on the other hand, defendant harbored 'multiple criminal objectives,' which were independent of and not merely incidental to each other, he may be punished for each statutory violation committed in pursuit of each objective, 'even though the violations shared common acts or were parts of an otherwise indivisible course of conduct.'" (People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 335.)

The trial court's findings will not be reversed on appeal if there is substantial evidence to support them. (People v. Hutchins (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1312.)

This case is similar to People v. Jones (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1139. In that case, the defendant, a convicted felon, drove by the house of his ex-girlfriend and shot into the house several times. When he was apprehended, no gun or ammunition was found in his possession. He was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and shooting at an inhabited dwelling. He argued on appeal that his sentence of possession of a firearm by a felon should be stayed. (Id. at pp. 1141-1142.) The appellate court initially noted, "'"[W]here the evidence shows a possession distinctly antecedent and separate from the primary offense, punishment on both crimes has been approved. On the other hand, where the evidence shows a possession only in conjunction with the primary offense, then punishment for the illegal possession of the firearm has been held to be improper where it is the lesser offense."'" (Id. at pp. 1143-1144.) It also noted, "[S]ection 654 is inapplicable when the evidence shows that the defendant arrived at the scene of his or her primary crime already in possession of the firearm." (Id. at p. 1145.) As such the court

Page 28