Does section 654 of the California Code of Criminal Code apply when a defendant is convicted of false imprisonment for assault with intent to pervert the course of justice by brandishing a knife?

In this case, as in People v. Trotter, supra, 7 Cal.App.4th 363, defendant committed each act voluntarily, by his own calculations, and each act was separated by a period of time in which reflection was possible. After defendant got out of the car to confront the witness, defendant had the opportunity reflect on his actions and decide whether or not to continue his violent behavior toward the victim. After she expressed an intention to break off the relationship, defendant took the victim's keys and tried to force her to change her mind. When she honked the horn to get help, defendant chose to elevate the crime by brandishing a knife. He then got out of the car, exchanged words with a witness, and could have chosen to end the assault. Instead, defendant made a conscious decision to get back into the car. He then started to assault the victim again, pinning her down and causing bruising. Defendant "'should . . . not be rewarded where, instead of taking advantage of an opportunity to walk away from the victim, he voluntarily resumed his . . . assaultive behavior.' [Citation.]" (Id. at p. 368, quoting People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 338.)

The purpose of section 654 is to ensure that defendant's punishment "'will be commensurate with his culpability.'" (People v. Latimer, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 1211.) Here, by using menace to continue the false imprisonment of the victim through the use of a blade, and by prolonging the attack after interruption, defendant is more culpable than had he only bruised the victim. Therefore, section 654 does not apply. The trial court properly sentenced defendant on counts 1 and 3.

Page 12

The judgment is affirmed.