Can a defendant be separately prosecuted for an armed robbery and possession of a weapon used in that robbery?

In contrast, in People v. Wasley (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 121, the court held that the defendant could not be separately prosecuted for armed robbery and possession of a weapon used in that robbery. (Id. at p. 122.) And in People v. Flint (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 333, the court held that the defendant, arrested for drunk driving while driving a stolen car, could not, after his guilty plea to driving while intoxicated, be subjected to a subsequent prosecution for grand theft of the automobile and joy riding. (Id. at p. 338.)

Here, as in People v. Martin, the fact that appellant was illegally in possession of various stolen items which he attempted to use at a store supported his conviction of the counts in Case 1, regardless of where he acquired the items, and did not establish that he had committed the burglaries of which he was convicted in Case 2. The evidence that would be used to establish the allegations in Case 1 would not be redundant to the evidence that would establish the allegations in Case 2. The charges concerning Case 1 are not so interrelated with the charges in Case 2 that the same course of conduct played a significant part in all of the offenses. Thus, section 654's proscription against multiple prosecutions is not implicated.

Page 14