Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. 04F6172
ROBIE, J.
This case has returned to us after we remanded it for resentencing. (People v. Rupp (May 4, 2007, C052544) [nonpub. opn.] (Rupp I).) In the underlying prosecution, a jury found defendant William Matthew Rupp guilty of a felony, unlawfully and recklessly causing a fire in which a structure or forest burned and of a misdemeanor, negligently using a lawn mower and causing a fire, a misdemeanor, after it heard evidence his power mower started a fire that destroyed over 10,000 acres and 80 homes. (Id. at p. 1.) In Rupp I, we affirmed the convictions, but remanded because the trial court had failed to impose a sentence on the misdemeanor. (Id. at p. 7.)
On remand, the trial court sentenced defendant to six months in county jail on the misdemeanor with credit for time served. Defendant now appeals from that sentence. He contends that the trial court should have stayed this sentence pursuant to Penal Code section 654, because both convictions are based on the same conduct. The People concede, and we agree. We shall again return the matter to the trial court.
BACKGROUND
We repeat the summary of underlying facts as they appeared in Rupp I.
“Defendant mowed for hours in the morning and early afternoon of August 11, 2004, a day of extreme fire hazard conditions (106 degrees by mid-afternoon, with six percent humidity and winds gusting up to nine miles per hour), despite his knowledge that he could be cited for mowing in the heat. He also disregarded a passerby’s warning that day, two prior warnings from the local fire chief, and extensive media publicity (which he admitted hearing) about the dangers of mowing on hot dry days. As he mowed, the blades repeatedly struck rocks, which can create sparks capable of igniting dry vegetation. Defendant admitted to the California Department of Forestry’s fire investigator that the fire started on his property just after he made his last pass with the mower in the early afternoon. The investigator ruled out all other possible causes of the fire and concluded that defendant’s mower had caused it by striking a rock and creating a spark.
“Testifying on his own behalf, defendant admitted mowing, but denied that anyone had warned him against doing so or that he had made inculpatory admissions to anyone. He claimed his mower hit a couple of rocks at most. He thought he could mow safely on the day of the fire despite the heat because the media did not broadcast a ‘red flag’ warning that day. He did not believe he caused the fire.” (Rupp I, supra, C052544 at p. 2.)
DISCUSSION
Penal Code section 654 provides in pertinent part 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.” The purpose of Penal Code section 654 is to ensure that a defendant’s punishment is commensurate with his culpability and that he is not punished more than once for what is essentially one criminal act. (People v. Latimer (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1203, 1211.) Penal Code section 654’s prohibition on multiple punishments applies to multiple offenses if all of them “were merely incidental to, or were the means of accomplishing or facilitating one objective,” as a consequence of which the trial court could find that the defendant “harbored a single intent.” (People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 335.) Claims of error concerning Penal Code section 654 are subject to review even absent an objection. (People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 295.)
Defendant contends, and the People concede, that the evidence adduced in Rupp I showed both convictions from a single event: defendant’s lawn mower struck a rock, created a spark, and caused a fire. Defendant’s actions showed a single objective, and thus he cannot be separately punished for both crimes. His sentence on the misdemeanor, once imposed, should have been stayed.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified to stay sentence on the misdemeanor pursuant to Penal Code section 654. As modified, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment and to forward a copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
We concur: DAVIS, Acting P.J., NICHOLSON, J.