Does section 654 of the Criminal Code bar multiple punishment for the same act or omission?

holder.⁶ With respect to his sentence on count 2 for identify theft, defendant contends the trial court erred in imposing a concurrent eight-month sentence rather than staying the sentence under section 654, which bars multiple punishment for the same act or omission.⁷ (People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 311.) The People concede the error.

As the parties agree, it is error for a trial court to impose a concurrent sentence if section 654 applies. (People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 350, 353.) The proper procedure is to impose a sentence but stay its execution, despite little practical difference between a concurrent sentence and a stayed sentence. (Ibid.)

Determining "[w]hether a defendant may be subjected to multiple punishment under section 654 requires a two-step inquiry, because the statutory reference to an 'act or omission' may include not only a discrete physical act but also a course of conduct encompassing several acts pursued with a single objective. [Citations.] We first consider if the different crimes were completed by a 'single physical act.' [Citation.] If so, the defendant may not be punished more than once for that act. Only if we conclude that the case involves more than a single acti.e., a course of conductdo we then consider whether that course of conduct reflects a single '"intent and objective"' or multiple intents and objectives." (People v. Corpening, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 311.)

On appeal, "[a] trial court's express or implied determination that two crimes were separate, involving separate objectives, must be upheld ... if supported by substantial evidence" (People v. Brents (2012) 53 Cal.4th 599, 618), that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible and of solid value (People v. Armstrong (2016) 1 Cal.5th 432, 450).

Page 9

When, as here, there is no "explicit ruling by the trial court at sentencing, we infer that the court made the finding appropriate to the sentence it imposed, i.e., either applying section 654 or not applying it." (People v. Mejia (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 1036, 1045, citing People v. Tarris (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 612, 626-627.)