People v. Gonzalez, 60 Cal. 4th 533

Defendant Ramon Gonzalez was observed performing oral copulation on Carolyn H., who had passed out after drinking; witnesses and an officer intervened.
Defendant was charged with two counts under Penal Code § 288a: (f) oral copulation of an unconscious person (count 1) and (i) oral copulation of an intoxicated person (count 2), based on the same act.
A jury convicted Gonzalez of both counts; the trial court sentenced on count 1 and stayed sentence on count 2 under § 654.
On appeal the Court of Appeal vacated the § 288a(i) conviction relying on People v. Craig (1941), concluding the subdivisions described the same offense. A dissent argued the subdivisions have distinct elements and punishments.
The California Supreme Court granted review to decide whether subdivisions (f) and (i) describe distinct offenses permitting multiple convictions under § 954.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a defendant may be convicted of both § 288a(f) (victim unconscious) and § 288a(i) (victim intoxicated) for the same act	The two subdivisions define different offenses with distinct elements and penalties; § 954 permits multiple convictions	The subdivisions merely list different ways to commit the same offense and Craig precludes multiple convictions for a single act	The subdivisions describe different offenses (neither is included in the other); multiple convictions are permissible though multiple punishments are governed by § 654

People v. Craig, 17 Cal.2d 453 (Cal. 1941) (held subdivisions of former rape statute were different circumstances of one offense)
People v. Benavides, 35 Cal.4th 69 (Cal. 2005) (same act can support multiple convictions unless one offense is necessarily included in another)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932) (test for separate offenses: each requires proof of a fact the other does not)
People v. Vargas, 59 Cal.4th 635 (Cal. 2014) (multiple convictions may exist without constituting multiple strikes under Three Strikes)