People v. Burnette CA3, C093139

Officers served a search warrant at defendant Paul Burnette’s apartment; he exited with cocaine and a loaded semiautomatic handgun.
When an officer approached and identified him, Burnette ran, removed a magazine and a live round while fleeing, and threw the gun, magazine, and ammunition over a fence.
Officers recovered the unloaded gun, a magazine, one loose round near the gun, and in total 11 rounds (10 in the magazine plus one in the chamber); Burnette had a holster and an aspirin bottle on his person containing 13 baggies of cocaine.
A bedroom search yielded 331 grams of cocaine in small baggies consistent with drug distribution.
A jury convicted Burnette of: possession of cocaine for sale (count 1); possession of cocaine while armed with a loaded firearm (count 2); possession of a firearm by a felon (count 3); and possession of ammunition by a prohibited person (count 4). The trial court imposed consecutive and concurrent terms across counts.
On appeal Burnette argued counts 3 and 4 should be stayed under Penal Code §654 as arising from the same act; the Attorney General conceded the point. The Court of Appeal agreed, remanding for resentencing under the post‑amendment §654 (Assembly Bill 518).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §654 bars separate punishment for counts 3 (felon in possession) and 4 (prohibited person in possession of ammunition) because they arose from the same act as count 2 (possession of cocaine while armed)	AG conceded §654 requires staying the sentences for counts 3 and 4 and that Assembly Bill 518 applies retroactively	Burnette argued all offenses stemmed from a single indivisible act (leaving with cocaine and a loaded gun, then discarding gun/ammo while fleeing), so multiple punishment violates §654	Court held the physical acts were a single indivisible act with a single intent (possession of cocaine while armed); sentences for counts 3 and 4 must be stayed and case remanded for resentencing under AB 518

People v. Brents, 53 Cal.4th 599 (2012) (sentence imposed contrary to §654 is unauthorized and correctable at any time)
People v. Frahs, 9 Cal.5th 618 (2020) (ameliorative sentencing changes apply retroactively under In re Estrada)
In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (1965) (retroactivity rule for reduced punishment statutes)
People v. Harrison, 48 Cal.3d 321 (1989) (§654 protects against multiple punishment and requires analysis of single act vs indivisible course of conduct)
People v. Corpening, 2 Cal.5th 307 (2016) (two‑step §654 inquiry: single physical act then single intent/objective analysis)
Neal v. State of California, 55 Cal.2d 11 (1960) (offenses incidental to a single objective support single punishment)
People v. Lopez, 119 Cal.App.4th 132 (2004) (single intent to possess a loaded firearm precludes separate punishment for possession of ammunition)
People v. Washington, 61 Cal.App.5th 776 (2021) (similar facts where tossing a gun while fleeing constituted a single act; vacated duplicate firearm sentences and remanded)