California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Delgado, No. A154729 (Cal. App. 2019):
" '[T]he purpose of section 654 "is to insure that a defendant's punishment will be commensurate with his culpability." ' " (People v. Capistrano (2014) 59 Cal.4th 830, 886.) It "precludes multiple punishments for a single act or indivisible course of
Page 6
conduct." (People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 294.) " ' " 'Whether a course of criminal conduct is divisible and therefore gives rise to more than one act within the meaning of section 654 depends on the intent and objective of the actor. If all of the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one.' " ' [Citation.] Intent and objective are factual questions for the trial court, which must find evidence to support the existence of a separate intent and objective for each sentenced offense." (People v. Jackson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 269, 354.)
A defendant who " 'harbored "multiple criminal objectives," which were independent of and not merely incidental to each other, . . . 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. Rodriguez (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1000, 1005.) Also, " ' " 'a course of conduct divisible in time, although directed to one objective, may give rise to multiple violations and punishment. [Citations.]' [Citations.] This is particularly so where the offenses are temporally separated in such a way as to afford the defendant opportunity to reflect and to renew his . . . intent before committing the next one, thereby aggravating the violation of public security or policy already undertaken.' " ' " (People v. DeVaughn (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1092, 1113.)
As this court has previously observed, " 'the law gives the trial court broad latitude in making this determination. Its findings on this question must be upheld on appeal if there is any substantial evidence to support them. [Citations.] "We must 'view the evidence in a light most favorable to the respondent and presume in support of the [sentencing] order the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.' " ' " (People v. Deegan (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 532, 545, fn. 4.)
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.