Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. SCD204477 George W. Clarke, Judge.
AARON, J.
Darrell E. Arias entered a negotiated guilty plea to nine counts of residential burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (a)) (counts 1 through 9); three counts of commercial burglary (§§ 459, 460, subd. (b)) (counts 10, 12, and 14); three counts of misdemeanor petty theft by using an access card (§ 484g, subd. (a)) (counts 11, 13, and 15); and one count of receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)) (count 16). The court sentenced him to eight years eight months in prison: the two-year lower term on count 1, consecutive terms of one year four months (one-third the middle term) on counts 2, 3, 4, 6, and 9; concurrent terms on counts 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16; and concurrent terms with full credit for time served on counts 11, 13, and 15. Arias appeals, contending the sentences on counts 11, 13, and 15 must be stayed (§ 654) and the amount of the court security fees must be corrected. We agree.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
BACKGROUND
On various dates on nine separate occasions, Arias entered nine separate residences with the intent to commit theft (counts 1 through 9).
On December 11, 2006, Arias entered a Vons supermarket with the intent to commit theft (count 10). Once inside, he made a purchase using a credit card that he had stolen (count 11).
On December 12, 2006, Arias entered Double Eagle guitar store with the intent to commit theft (count 12). On the same date, he unlawfully and with the intent to defraud, used an access card that had been obtained unlawfully to obtain money, goods or services (count 13). This apparently occurred at the guitar store.
The record does not expressly identify the victim in count 13. One can infer from the list of victims under count 13 that the victim in this count is Double Eagle.
On December 12, 2006, in an incident unrelated to count 12, Arias entered Casa Sanchez with the intent to commit theft (count 14). On the same date, "in an unrelated incident to the previous charges," he unlawfully and with the intent to defraud, used an access card that had been obtained unlawfully to obtain money, goods or services (count 15). This occurred at Casa Sanchez.
On February 1, 2007, Arias unlawfully received and concealed property that he knew had been stolen (count 16).
The Sentences on Counts 11, 13, and 15 Must Be Stayed Pursuant to Section 654
Arias contends that the trial court erred in imposing concurrent sentences on counts 11, 13, and 15. He maintains that the court was required to impose and stay sentence on these counts pursuant to section 654, and that the imposition of concurrent sentences is unauthorized.
"An 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." (§ 654, subd. (a).) Section 654 bars double punishment, including concurrent sentences, for a course of conduct constituting one indivisible transaction with one criminal objective. (Neal v. State of California (1960) 55 Cal.2d 11, 19; People v. Latimer (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1203; People v. Lee (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 774, 785.)
Where "section 654 prohibits multiple punishment, the trial court must stay execution of sentence on the convictions for which multiple punishment is prohibited." (People v. Reed (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1224, 1227.)
Perceiving that Arias may be in a better position having already served the sentences on counts 11, 13, and 15, rather than having them imposed and stayed, we requested that the parties submit supplemental briefs addressing whether Arias was prejudiced by the asserted section 654 error. Arias's position is that the sentences are ipso facto prejudicial because they are unauthorized.
We conclude that section 654 requires that the sentences on counts 11, 13, and 15 be stayed, and that the imposition of concurrent sentences with credit for time served on those counts was thus unauthorized.
The Amount of the Court Security Fees Must Be Corrected
Although not reflected in the reporter's transcript, the sentencing minute order and abstract of judgment show a $720 court security fee (§ 1465.8). The fee was required, but the amount specified in the statute is $20 for each offense. (§ 1465.8, subd. (a).) Here, there were 16 offenses. The fee should thus be $320.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified by staying the sentences on counts 11, 13, and 15 and reducing the court security fees from $720 to $320. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment and to forward it to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
WE CONCUR: McDONALD, Acting P. J., McINTYRE, J.