How have courts dealt with multiple convictions arising out of a single act of drunk driving?

In People v. Duarte (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 438, 207 Cal.Rptr. 615, the court faced a situation comparable to the instant matter. The defendant was convicted, inter alia, of violating subdivisions (a) and (b) of Vehicle Code section 23153 (driving under the influence). Both convictions arose from a single act of "drunk driving." The Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions, but feared that although the defendant's sentence on the second conviction was stayed in accordance with well-established section 654 practice, the risk remained that both convictions might be used to enhance future punishment. The court reasoned: "Having suffered two convictions and one punishment, defendant remains exposed to the use of the two convictions to enhance future punishment. The Vehicle Code contains an increasing number of sections which penalize recidivism. These sections ordinarily refer to prior 'convictions' without qualifying them to exclude multiple convictions arising from a single driving occasion. By only staying punishment on one of the two convictions, another court at another time may have to determine whether the defendant has one or two 'priors.' " (Id. at p. 447, italics in original, 207 Cal.Rptr.[721 P.2d 602] 615.) To avoid such multiple enhancement based on a single act of illegal driving, which the court correctly stated would be a violation of section 654, it modified the judgment by ordering that "the use of the [second] conviction ... as a prior conviction for penal and administrative purposes, be stayed...." (Id. at p. 448, italics in original, 207 Cal.Rptr. 615.) Again, in People v. Conner (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 716, 222 Cal.Rptr. 311, the court was also faced with multiple convictions arising out of a single act of drunk driving; it followed Duarte and stayed the use of the lesser conviction for sentencing and administrative purposes. (Id. at p. 719, 222 Cal.Rptr. 311.)