California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from The People v. Flores, B214335, No. TA099668 (Cal. App. 2010):
Because section 654 applied, rather than imposing concurrent sentences on counts 2 and 4, the trial court should have stayed the sentence on those counts. (See People v. Hester, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 294; People v. Hernandez (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1232, 1239.) We order the abstract of judgment modified to reflect that sentence on counts 2 and 4 is stayed.
8. Cumulative error.
Flores contends that the cumulative effect of the purported errors denied him a fair trial. As we have " 'either rejected on the merits defendant's claims of error or have found any assumed errors to be nonprejudicial[,]' " we reach the same conclusion with respect to the cumulative effect of any purported errors. (People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1235-1236; People v. Rogers (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1136, 1181.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.