People v. Jones
54 Cal. 4th 350
| Cal. | 2012Background
- Jones, a convicted felon, was found in a car with a loaded and concealed .38-caliber revolver not registered to him.
- On May 26, 2008, police found the gun in a door panel of the car Jones was driving.
- Jones was charged and convicted of three crimes: felon in possession of a firearm, carrying a readily accessible concealed and unregistered firearm, and carrying an unregistered loaded firearm in public.
- The superior court sentenced him to the upper term on each count, concurrent, plus a prior prison term enhancement, totaling four years.
- The Court of Appeal stayed execution on one of the counts, agreeing section 654 barred some multiple punishment but allowing punishment on one count versus others.
- The California Supreme Court held that, as to a single firearm possession on a single occasion, only one punishment is allowed under section 654.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does section 654 bar multiple punishment for three firearm offenses arising from one act? | Jones argues multiple punishment allowed between counts two and three. | People argues separate punishments are permissible for distinct statutory offenses. | Section 654 prohibits multiple punishment for a single act. |
| Is the conduct a single act or multiple acts for section 654 purposes? | Harrison/Hayes-like reasoning supports multiple acts. | State contends the act is a single possession/carry of one firearm. | The conduct constitutes a single act for purposes of 654; only one punishment permitted. |
| Should Hayes and Harrison be retained or overruled in applying Neal/section 654? | Hayes/Harrison should permit multiple punishment in some single-act scenarios. | Hayes/Harrison misapply the plain language; Neal controls and should be overruled. | Overruled Hayes and Harrison; adopt a single-act–based restriction under 654. |
| What role should Neal v. California play in applying section 654 here? | Neal is correct and should govern single-objective analysis. | Majority should not rely on Neal; use plain-language approach. | Neal test governs when there is ambiguity; here, a single objective yields one punishment. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Harrison, 1 Cal.App.3d 115 (Cal. App. 1969) (permits some multiple punishment under Neal framework (historical context))
- In re Hayes, 70 Cal.2d 604 (Supreme Court of California 1969) (held multiple punishments for single act; later overruled)
- Neal v. State of California, 55 Cal.2d 11 (Cal. 1960) (Neal test: divisibility depends on actor's intent and objective)
- People v. Latimer, 5 Cal.4th 1203 (Cal. 1993) (reaffirmed Neal and discussed stare decisis concerns)
- People v. Beamon, 8 Cal.3d 625 (Cal. 1973) (act or omission can be indivisible in time with single objective)
- People v. Correa, 54 Cal.4th 331 (Cal. 2012) (overruled Hayes-like language to align with 654)