Can a defendant be punished for both illegal possession of a weapon and assault with a deadly weapon under section 654 of the California Criminal Code?

Section 654, subdivision (a) provides, in relevant 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." "[I]t is well settled that section 654 applies not only where there was but one act in the ordinary sense, but also where there was a course of conduct which violated more than one statute but nevertheless constituted an indivisible transaction. [Citation.] Whether a course of conduct is indivisible depends upon the intent and objective of the actor." (People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 551.) If multiple offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may not be punished for more than one. "On the other hand, if the evidence discloses that a defendant entertained multiple criminal objectives which were independent of and not merely incidental to each other, he may be punished for the independent violations committed in pursuit of each objective even though the violations were parts of an otherwise indivisible course of conduct." (Ibid.) The purpose of the protection against multiple punishments is to ensure that the defendant's punishment will be commensurate with his criminal culpability. (Id. at p. 551.)

The applicability section 654 is a question of fact for the trial court, whose determination we review for substantial evidence. (People v. Jones (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1143 (Jones).)

2. Analysis

Here, defendant was convicted of both illegally possessing a weapon ( 4502, subd. (a), count 4) and of an offense employing that weapon, namely assault with a deadly weapon by a state prisoner ( 4501, subd. (a), count 3). In such circumstances, section 654 permits both crimes to be punished " 'where the evidence shows a possession distinctly antecedent and separate from the primary offense . . . .' " (People v. Bradford (1976) 17 Cal.3d 8, 22 (Bradford).) Thus, "multiple punishment is proper

Page 8