Does section 654 of the Criminal Code bar multiple punishment for the crime of possession of a silencer and maintaining a place for selling a controlled substance?

In People v. Moseley (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1598, the defendant was convicted of possession of methamphetamine for sale and of maintaining a place for selling a controlled substance. He claimed that the sentence for the latter offense should have been stayed under section 654, because the two offenses arose from a single criminal objective and were committed during the same time period (and one search). (Id. at p. 1599-1600.) The court found substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding of two separate objectives, first, to maintain his apartment to sell his methamphetamine on an ongoing basis and, separately, his objective to sell the nine bags of drugs in his possession on the day of his arrest. (Id. at p. 1604; see also In re Adams (1975) 14 Cal.3d 629, 636 [where defendant transports a quantity of drugs and sells only a portion of that quantity, defendant may be punished for both selling and transporting drugs].) Similarly, in this case, the fact that acts of stalking preceded and followed the criminal threats does not mean that section 654 applies, as long as the crime of stalking is separately proven.

The cases relied upon by Wynne are distinguishable. In People v. Lewis (2008) 43 Cal.4th 415, 519, overruled on another ground in People v. Black (2014) 58 Cal.4th 912, 919-920, the court applied section 654 to bar multiple punishment for the crimes of kidnapping for robbery and robbery where both crimes were committed with the single

Page 18

objective of taking the victims' cars and taking cash from their ATMs. In People v. Liu (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1135-1136, the court found section 654 applied to bar punishment for the crime of possession of a silencer where the defendant purchased the silencer as part of a conspiracy to kidnap and murder the victims, and was the overt act necessary for the conspiracy.⁸

It is likewise a different situation where a defendant is convicted for two crimes arising from a single act, as to which section 654 applies. In his reply brief, Wynne relies upon People v. Mesa (2012) 54 Cal.4th 191, 200, in which the court found that section 654 applied because the same actshooting the victimwas punishable as two crimes, an assault with a firearm and actively participating in a street gang.⁹