People v. Correa, 54 Cal. 4th 331

Police found defendant Victor Correa hiding in a closet with seven firearms and ammunition; he was charged with seven counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm under former § 12021(a)(1).
Correa was convicted of seven firearm-possessor counts and one count of receiving a stolen vehicle; the court imposed consecutive 25-to-life terms for each firearm and the stolen-vehicle count.
The central issue was whether § 654 bars multiple punishment for multiple violations of the same statute or if each weapon possession count can be punished separately.
The California Supreme Court overruled Neal’s footnote (dicta) and held that § 654 does not prohibit multiple punishment for multiple violations of the same provision when the statute authorizes separate offenses per firearm.
Former § 12001(k) (now § 23510) expressly provides that possession of each firearm constitutes a distinct offense, supporting separate punishment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 654 bars multiple punishment for multiple violations of the same statute	Correa's counsel argued Neal footnote should preclude multiple punishment.	State contends Neal footnote is not controlling; statute permits separate offenses per firearm.	§ 654 does not bar multiple punishment for same-statute violations.
Application of Neal footnote reconsideration to this case	Neal footnote should remain controlling on this point.	Footnote is incorrect; overruled by this decision.	Neal footnote disapproved; not binding on this issue.
Whether the legislature's amendment to § 12001(k) implies permission for multiple punishments	Amendment overruled Kirk and implied both multiple convictions and punishments.	Legislature intended separate offenses for each firearm; thus multiple punishments permitted.	Legislative amendment supports separate punishments for each firearm.
Retroactivity/due process impact of new rule on defendant	Rule should apply to all defendants; retroactive benefits apply.	Due process requires prospective application only.	New rule applied prospectively; due process considerations permit this.
Scope of § 654’s reach in light of related case law	§ 654 should extend to multiple offenses arising from same act.	Limit § 654 to punishments under different provisions; not same-provision violations.	Limit § 654 to actions punishable under different provisions; not applicable to multiple violations of the same provision.

Neal v. State of California, 55 Cal.2d 11 (Cal. 1960) (footnote dictum disapproved; Neal gloss questioned)
Latimer, 5 Cal.4th 1203 (Cal. 1993) (adheres to Neal but recognizes limitations; discuss stare decisis)
Oates, 32 Cal.4th 1048 (Cal. 2004) (section 654 not applied to violence against multiple victims)
Harrison, 48 Cal.3d 321 (Cal. 1989) (multiple counts of sexual penetration preserved; section 654 not broad deterrent)
Perez, 23 Cal.3d 545 (Cal. 1979) (culpability increased by multiple base acts)
Kirk, 211 Cal.App.3d 58 (Cal. App. 1989) (overruled by legislative amendment; posed ambiguity over multiple firearms)
Clemett, 208 Cal. 142 (Cal. 1929) (cooperative acts constituting single offense; multiple punishments barred)
Nor Woods, 37 Cal.2d 584 (Cal. 1951) (multiple theft convictions; one act, one offense)
Roberts, 40 Cal.2d 483 (Cal. 1953) (cooperative acts as single offense; consolidate convictions)
Brown, 49 Cal.2d 577 (Cal. 1950) (abortion/murder double punishment; foundational 654 principles)
King, 5 Cal.4th 59 (Cal. 1993) (retroactivity considerations; Culbreth overruled for nonretroactivity)
Britt, 32 Cal.4th 944 (Cal. 2004) (multiple prosecutions vs punishment; separate offenses context)