When a defendant is convicted of a burglary, robbery and assault under section 654 of the California Criminal Code, what is the appropriate punishment?

Section 654 provides that "[a]n act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law shall be punished under the provision that provides for the longest potential term of imprisonment, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision." When section 654 applies, the proper procedure is to impose the sentence on the lesser offense, but stay it.² (People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1469.)

Page 5

The crucial factor in determining whether section 654 prohibits multiple punishment is whether or not the defendant can be found to have harbored multiple criminal objectives; if all offenses were incidental to a single objective, multiple punishment is prohibited. (People v. Kurtenbach (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1288.) The trial court's determination that separate intents were involved will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence. (People v. Brents (2012) 53 Cal.4th 599, 618.)

After a general discussion of the law in this respect, defendant relies on People v. Guzman (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1023 (Guzman). In that case, the victim observed defendant and others removing property from his (attached) garage. He pursued them, and when he confronted them, defendant and another perpetrator beat, choked, and kicked the victim before fleeing. (Id. at pp. 1025-1026.) Defendant was convicted of and separately sentenced for burglary, robbery, and grand theft. The appellate court held that the attack on the victim (which made the matter a robbery case through the use of force) occurred while the perpetrators were attempting to escape after the burglary and that separate punishment was inappropriate.³ (Id. at p. 1028.)