People v. Perea CA3, C080321

On May 4, 2014, Perea was stopped at a DUI checkpoint driving with a 0.23% BAC and on a suspended license for prior DUIs.
Perea entered an open no-contest plea to felony driving with BAC ≥ 0.08% (count two) and misdemeanor driving on a suspended license (count three).
He admitted driving with BAC ≥ 0.20% and three prior DUI convictions, plus a 1986 strike (involuntary manslaughter) and three prior prison-term allegations.
The trial court denied Perea’s request to strike the strike and sentenced him to an aggregate nine years: six years on count two (three-year upper term doubled for the strike) plus three one-year prior-term enhancements; a concurrent 60-day jail term was imposed on count three.
Appeal was prosecuted under People v. Wende; court requested supplemental briefing on whether the misdemeanor term should be stayed.
The parties agreed the two convictions arose from a single act; the court found the concurrent misdemeanor term violated Penal Code § 654 and ordered it stayed; it also directed corrections to the abstract of judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentence on count three must be stayed under Penal Code § 654 because it punished the same act as count two	The People agreed the offenses arose from a single act and that the count-three term should be stayed under § 654	Perea (implicitly) sought relief from multiple punishment; both parties agreed § 654 applied	The court held the concurrent 60-day jail term for count three punished the same act and violated § 654; execution of the count-three sentence is stayed
Whether the abstract of judgment properly reflected the strike and prior-term enhancements	The People concurred corrections were needed to accurately reflect the strike as alternative sentencing and the three 1‑year prior terms	Perea did not contest corrections but sought an accurate abstract	The court ordered specific corrections: reflect six years for count two (3-year upper term doubled), mark the strike in the strike box (not enhancements), remove erroneous “ps,” and set enhancement total at three years

People v. Jones, 54 Cal.4th 350 (explaining § 654 prohibits multiple punishment for a single physical act)
People v. Hester, 22 Cal.4th 290 (unauthorized sentences may be corrected on appeal)
People v. Superior Court (Romero), 13 Cal.4th 497 (Three Strikes is an alternative sentencing scheme, not an enhancement)
People v. Sipe, 36 Cal.App.4th 468 (discussing treatment of strike priors in sentencing)