Opinion
H024674.
10-28-2003
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAUL UVALLES, Defendant and Appellant.
A jury found appellant guilty of first degree murder in violation of Penal Code section 187 and second degree robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211-212.5, subdivision (c). The trial court sentenced appellant to state prison for 25 years to life for the murder charged in count one. The trial court imposed a concurrent sentence of three years for the robbery charged in count two. Appellant contends that the sentence on the robbery count violates both the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Penal Code section 654. Respondent concedes the sentence violates Penal Code section 654. We stay the sentence on count two.
The evidence presented at trial showed that appellant spent time on the night of August 19, 2001, with a person whose dead body was found the next morning with the pockets turned out. Other evidence, including ATM records and surveillance tapes, blood stain analysis of appellants clothing, shoe print impressions, and appellants statements at the time of his booking all linked appellant to the murder. At trial, the prosecutor argued alternative theories of first-degree murder, stating that it had either been a result of premeditation and deliberation with the motive being robbery or felony murder in that the homicide occurred during the course of a robbery.
Penal Code section 654 provides that multiple sentences for the "same act or omission" are prohibited. "[B]ecause the statute is intended to ensure that defendant is punished commensurate with his culpability [citation], its protection has been extended to cases in which there are several offenses committed during a course of conduct deemed to be indivisible in time. " (People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 335, citing People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 551 and People v. Beamon (1973) 8 Cal.3d 625, 639.) Whether a course of conduct is indivisible for purposes of section 654 depends on the intent and objective of the actor. If all the offenses are incidental to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of them, but not for more than one. (People v. Latimer (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1203, 1208.) Here, as respondent concedes, the robbery and the killing were incident to one objective, thus making the crime one indivisible transaction subject to only one punishment under section 654. Accordingly, the sentence for count two must be stayed. This stay renders appellants double jeopardy claim moot. (Jones v. Thomas (1989) 491 U.S. 376, 382.)
The judgment is modified to stay the three-year sentence for count two. The superior court is ordered to amend the abstract of judgment accordingly and to send a certified copy of the amended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Rushing, P. J., Premo, J.