P v., Reyes-Tornero (5th Dist.) The "Relevant Act" for Purposes of PC 654 Analysis Is the Crime not the Enhancement.

This case involves a weekly neighborhood card game.  Four gentlemen were playing cards outside when Mr. Reyes-Tornero (Reyes) approached with a pistol.  Reyes pointed the gun at each of the four men and demanded they hand over their wallets.  One of the men refused to hand over his wallet and Reyes shot him in the face.  Thankfully the man survived (and actually continued to pummel Reyes).

Among other crimes, Reyes was convicted of felony assault as to all four card players.  Found true as to all four assaults was an enhancement that Reyes inflicted great bodily injury (GBI) during the commission of each assault.  Reyes was sentenced accordingly.  He appealed, arguing that the GBI enhancement could only be imposed once because he only inflicted GBI upon one of the victims, despite the jury finding the GBI was inflicted during each of the four assaults.

The Fifth District affirms.

The issue in this case is Penal Code section 654.  Section 654 prohibits multiple punishments for the same "act or or omission".  Section 654 is important because, due to the expansive Penal Code, it is nearly impossible to do something illegal without violating multiple laws.  For example, a convicted felon driving a car with an unregistered, loaded, pistol in the glove box violates numerous laws (felon in possession, possession of a concealed firearm, etc.).  The felon can be convicted of multiple offenses for his "act" of driving with the gun, but under 654, he cannot be punished for more than one of the crimes.

Here the issue is not multiple crimes, but multiple enhancements.  Reyes assaulted four men, but injured only one.  The crimes constitute four separate acts; Reyes assault each victim.  However all four enhancements derive from the same act, the shooting of one of the men.  If, under 654, the relevant "act" that cannot be punished more than once is the enhancement, the shooting, then Reyes cannot be punished for the remaining three enhancements.  But if the relevant act is the crime to which the enhancement attaches, 654 provides no impediment to multiple punishments, since Reyes did commit four acts of assault.

Relying on a California Supreme Court decision (P v. Oates), the panel determines that the relevant act is the crime and affirms the multiple punishments.  In a concurrence, Justice Poochigan acknowledges that the rule in Oates compels the result, but writes, quite thoughtfully, that the California Supreme Court may wish to reexamine the Oates rule in the context of multiple GBI enhancements where there is only one injury.