Does section 654 of the California Criminal Code prohibit separate, albeit concurrent, sentences for assault with a deadly weapon and negligent discharge of a firearm in the same act?

Defendant contends that section 654's prohibition on multiple punishment for the same act precluded separate, albeit concurrent, sentences for the assault with a deadly weapon in count 1, and the negligent discharge of a firearm in count 2. He makes the same contention as to the sentences for felon in possession of a firearm in count 3, and the felon in possession of ammunition in count 4. The People agree the sentence on count 4 should have been stayed because the ammunition in defendant's possession was loaded into a magazine in the firearm. (People v. Lopez (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 132, 138.) However, regarding the sentences on counts 2 and 1, the People contend the objectives and intents were separate despite the fact that the offenses were committed close in time.

"Section 654 precludes multiple punishment for a single act or omission, or an indivisible course of conduct. [Citations.]" (People v. Deloza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 585, 591.) "'A trial court's implied finding that a defendant harbored a separate intent and objective for each offense will be upheld on appeal if it is supported by substantial evidence.' [Citation.]" (People v. Racy (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1327, 1336-1337.) The fact that there was one victim common to both crimes does not alone create a single course of conduct. (People v. McGahuey (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 524, 529-530 [multiple punishment permissible for burglary in which money and hatchet stolen from home and assault with a deadly weapon in which defendant threw hatchet through window from outside house at victim who was calling police].)

Page 16