What is the difference between a conviction for false imprisonment and a concurrent conviction for forcible penetration?

Appellant claims the trial court's imposition of punishment on his conviction for felony false imprisonment (a lesser included offense of count 1) and his conviction on count 2 violated section 654. We agree. There was substantial evidence appellant committed the felony false imprisonment (a lesser included offense of count 1) with the objective of committing the forcible penetration at issue in count 2. As between those two convictions, section 654 barred punishment for felony false imprisonment (here, a two-year concurrent sentence) because forcible penetration (count 2) carried the longer potential imprisonment term. (Cf. People v. Latimer (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1203, 1205; People v. Magana (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 1117, 1120-1121; 237, 289, subd. (a)(1)(A), 654, subd. (a), 1170, subd. (h)(1).) We will remand with directions to resentence appellant by

Page 14

suspending execution of sentence imposed on count 1, pending completion of his sentence(s) on the remaining counts. (People v. Pearson (1986) 42 Cal.3d 351, 360.)¹² We express no opinion as to what appellant's new sentence, or any of its components, should be.