People v. Buchanan
204 Cal. Rptr. 3d 167
Cal. Ct. App.
2016
Check Treatment

THE PEOPLE, Plаintiff and Respondent, v. ARLON BUCHANAN, Defendant and Appellant.

No. C074139

Third Dist.

June 27, 2016

248 Cal. App. 4th 603

COUNSEL

John Steinberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Gerald A. Engler, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorneys General, Eric L. Christoffersen and Brook A. Bennigson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

HOCH, J.—A jury convicted defendant Arlon Buchanan of possession of heroin for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351; count 1), transportation of heroin for sale (id., § 11352; count 2), possession of methamphetamine for sale (id., § 11378; count 3), transportation of methamphetamine for sale (id., § 11379; count 4), possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1); count 5),1 and possession of ammunition by a felon (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1); count 6). The jury also found true the allegations defendant was armed during the commission of the four narcotics-related offenses (§ 12022, subd. (c); counts 1, 3, 4), had a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12), and had served four prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced defendant to serve 32 years eight months in state prison.

On appеal, defendant contends (1) the trial court erroneously excluded from the evidence a signed statement by a person who claimed to own some of the drugs and drug paraphernalia, and the handgun that were found, (2) defendant‘s convictions for possession and transportation of heroin must be reversed because the police violated his rights under (Trombetta) by destroying exculpatory evidence when they mixed together the similar-looking contents of two bindles before detecting heroin in the combined mass, (3) the mixture of the contents of the two bindles rendered the evidence of his possession and transportation of heroin insufficient, (4) section 654 precludes multiple punishments for his simultaneous transportation of methamphetamine and heroin for sale, (5) section 654 also prevents multiple punishments for his possession of a firearm as a felon and being armed in the commission of the narcotics offenses, and (6) multiple sentence enhancements are precluded under section 654 for being armed in the simultaneous commission of the four narcotics-related offenses.

On our own motion, we requested that the parties address three additional issues. First, whether section 654 applies to defendant‘s separate sentences for possession of heroin for sale and transportation of heroin for sale, as well as to his separate sentences for possession of methamphetamine for sale and transportation of methamphetamine for sale. Second, whether a conclusion section 654 applies to possession for sale and transportation for sale of the same substances would have any effect on the arming enhancements imposed under section 12022, subdivision (c), for each of defendant‘s narcotics convictions. Third, whether the California Supreme Court‘s holding in (Jones) precludes separate sentences for being a felon in possession of a firearm and for the firearm enhancements attached to his narcotics offenses—all of which were based on defendant‘s possession of a single firearm on a single occasion.

We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding a hearsay statement from the owner of the vehicle where the contraband was found because the defense did not demonstrate due diligence in attempting to secure the testimony of the proposed witness. The trial court did not err in admitting evidence of the mixed substance that tested positive for heroin. The police did not destroy the evidеnce by combining the similar-looking contents of the two bindles nor did they discard any of the packaging materials from which they originated. We reject defendant‘s insufficiency of the evidence argument because it is undisputed that what the police found in defendant‘s possession was heroin.

We reject defendant‘s contention the trial court erred in imposing separate sentences for defendant‘s methamphetamine and heroin-related offenses. These were different types of narcotics that increased defendant‘s potential customers. We accept the People‘s concession that section 654 applies to stay one of defendant‘s separate sentences for possession and transportation of heroin for sale, and also applies to stay one of defendant‘s sentences for possession and transportation of methamphetamine for sale. Finally, we conclude section 654 bars separate punishments for the defendant‘s possession of a single firearm on a single occasion.

Accordingly, we affirm defendant‘s convictions but reverse and remand for resentencing.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Prosecution Evidence

At 3:15 a.m. on August 2, 2012, defendant was driving a minivan in an area of Stockton known for narcotics sales and prostitution. Stockton Police Department Officers Kenneth Welter and Ronald Zalunardo stopped the van after noticing one of the taillights was inoperable. The officers asked to see defendant‘s driver‘s license but he said he did not have one. Officer Welter instructed defendant to get out of the van, patsearched him, and detained him in the back of their patrol vehicle. The officers looked into the van and saw a Bersa .380 semiautomatic handgun on the floor between the front seats. The gun turned out to be loaded with seven .380 hollow point bullets.

Approximately five to six inches from the gun was a brown coin purse containing “a very large golf-ball size” piece of crystal methamphetamine weighing 11.3 grams, 125 small Ziploc baggies in two sizes, a one-inch Ziploc baggie containing tar heroin, and $117.05 in cash and coins. The police officers also found a pink purse on the floor behind the driver‘s seat. The pink purse contained a digital scale and a package containing eight unused hypodermic needles. On the part of the digital scale where items are placed to be weighed there was a white crystalline substance consistent with methamphetamine. Brown tar consistent with tar heroin was found around the sides of the scale.

After finding the handgun and narcotics in the minivan, thе officers searched defendant and found a bindle of tar heroin inside his pants pocket. The bindle of heroin found inside defendant‘s pants pocket and the coin purse under the front seat had the same appearance: both had the same sticky brown substance, were wrapped in the same way, and seemingly contained the same amount. Defendant did not appear to be under the influence of any controlled substance.

The officers looked up the van‘s registration based on its license plate and found it was registered to Jerry Haney. While the officers searched the van, Haney showed up at the scene riding a bike.

During the booking process, the contents of the two bindles of sticky brown substance were combined. ‍‌‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌​‌​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‍The combined net weight was 0.58 grams and tested positive for the presence of heroin.

Stockton Police Department Sergeant Matthew Garlick testified as a narcotics expert. Sergeant Garlick testified narcotics dealing is an extremely dangerous activity and dealers often carry guns to protect themselves during deals. He explained the amount of heroin under defendant‘s control would provide five to six doses and has an approximate street value of $60. Given the form of the heroin fоund at the scene, the hypodermic needles would be a delivery mechanism for the drug. Drug dealers commonly sell hypodermic needles along with heroin. The amount of methamphetamine found at the scene sufficed for 100 “hits” or doses and would be worth approximately $200 to $300 on the street. In Sergeant Garlick‘s experience, that amount of methamphetamine was “not something that a user, someone on the street, would have the money to afford.” The number of syringes found at the scene also indicated the heroin was possessed for purposes of sale. And the number of Ziploc bags was consistent with sale of usable amounts of methamphetamine. The fact no methamphetamine pipe or dirty needles were found further indicated defendant was selling narcotics rather than using them himself.

The parties stipulated defendant had a prior felony conviction that barred him from lawfully possessing a firearm or ammunition. The parties also stipulated the van was not registered to defendant, the van was towed, and it was not claimed by anyone thereafter.

Defense Evidence

Defendant testified on his own behalf as follows: On August 2, 2012, he was living at the Capri Motel with his girlfriends, Lenora and Sarah. Lenora was sick due to heroin withdrawal. She had no heroin left because she had purchаsed a counterfeit substance that looked just like the narcotic. Defendant took the counterfeit substance and put it into his pants pocket. Early that evening, Haney—the owner of the minivan—arrived at the motel with defendant‘s partner, Adam Cox. Around 3:00 a.m., defendant noticed Lenora was gone. Concerned about her, defendant took Haney‘s unlocked van because it did not require a key to start it. Defendant did not look around the van before he drove off because it would have made him look like a thief. As defendant was driving around and looking for Lenora, he was pulled over by the police. While defendant was detained in the backseat of the police car, he received a call from Haney. Haney rode over to the scene on one of defendant‘s bicycles.

Defendant stated the coin purse found in the car belonged to Cox. The baggie of heroin-like counterfeit substance found in defendant‘s pants pocket belonged to Lenora. The handgun in the van belonged to defendant‘s ex-girlfriend, Letricia Tyson.

Defendant denied selling drugs or having a job, explaining he did not support himself “too good” but instead “live[d] off the land.” He received support from his family members and eight women with whom he had children.

Defendant admitted convictions for robbery in 1988 as well as three felony crimes of moral turpitude in 1991, 1996, and 2005.

Bernard Moore, an investigator for the public defender, testified that on the day before trial he went to the apartment listed as Haney‘s place of residence but found the apartment to be vacant. Moore gave Cox a subpoena the first time he met with Cox. But when Moore went back to talk to Cox, Cox‘s apartment was empty as well.

DISCUSSION

I-III*

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IV

Section 654

Defendant contends section 654 precludes multiple punishments for his transportation of methamphetamine and heroin for sale, multiple punishments for his possession of a firearm as a felon and being armed in the commission of the narcotics offenses, and multiple punishments for being armed in the simultaneous commission of the four narcotics-related offenses.

As noted in our introduction, this court on its own motion raised the issues (1) whether section 654 applies to the possession and transportation of heroin and also to the possession and transportation of methamphetamine, (2) whether a stay of either the possessory or transportation offenses also stays any attached arming enhancements, and (3) whether prohibits sentence enhancements based on possession of the same firearm for which defendant was convicted and sentenced for being a felon in possession of a firearm.

As we explain, section 654 applies to possession for sale and transportation for sale of the same substance. The California Supreme Court‘s holding in precludes multiple sentences for defendant‘s possession of a single gun on a single occasion.

A.

Transportation of Heroin and Methamphetamine for Sale

The trial court imposed consecutive sentences for defendant‘s convictions of count 2 for transportation of heroin for sale and count 4 for transportation of methamphetamine for sale. Defendant contends the trial court violated section 654 by imposing consecutive terms for counts 2 and 4 because his transportation of the two types of narcotics for sale was a “single” and “simultaneous” act. We disagree.

Section 654, subdivision (a), provides in pertinent part: “An act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law shall be punished under the provision that provides for the longest potential term of imprisonment, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision.” Section 654 bars multiple punishment for separate offenses arising out of a single occurrence when all of the offenses were incident to one objective. (.) Whether section 654 applies is a question of fact for the trial court, and its finding will be uрheld if there is substantial evidence to support the finding. (.)

Nonetheless, “California courts have uniformly held that section 654 does not preclude multiple punishment for simultaneous possession of various narcotic drugs.” (; see also .) Monarrez illustrates this point. That case involved convictions based on the simultaneous possession of both heroin and cocaine for sale and for which the trial court imposed separate sentences. (Monarrez, at p. 712.) On appeal, the defendant argued both offenses involved “essentially the same act,” for which separate punishment was barrеd under section 654. (Monarrez, at p. 712.) The Monarrez court rejected the contention on grounds that “[i]t would be absurd to hold that a criminal who deals in one contraband substance can expand the scope of his [or her] inventory without facing additional consequences” and “[a]lthough the overall intent is always to make money, the objectives of selling cocaine and heroin are separate.” (Id. at pp. 714-715.) Moreover, the “evidence supported a finding that defendant had been engaged ‍‌‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌​‌​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‍in multiple sales and intended to make multiple sales of the narcotics which he possessed.” (Id. at p. 715.)

Here, the trial court properly imposed separate punishments for defendant‘s transportation for sale of heroin and methamphetamine. As the prosecution‘s narcotics expert testified, heroin and methamphetamine addicts constitute separate groups of drug users because the drugs themselves are very different. Methamphetamine is a stimulant, while heroin is a depressant. As the narcotics expert explained, methamphetamine and heroin are “two different narcotics, something that the same person would not use commonly. I‘m not saying it hasn‘t been done, but it‘s not very common.” In other words, defendant was transporting different drugs for different types of drug abusers. Based оn the different markets for the different drugs, defendant intended the transportation to serve different purposes.

Defendant relies on section 654 and (Adams) to argue he should not have been separately sentenced for his two transportation of narcotics convictions. In Adams, the California Supreme Court struck the multiple punishments imposed on a defendant who had been apprehended transporting several types of contraband in his vehicle. (Id. at pp. 637-638.) On grounds defendant had only the single objective of delivering the narcotics to a cohort, the Adams court determined transportation offenses constituted an “indivisible course of cоnduct [that] results in the commission of a single punishable offense.” (Id. at p. 635.) Defendant argues Adams applies to him and leads to the conclusion he harbored a single intent and objective in this case—to transport illegal drugs.

is inapposite because defendant in this case was not transporting a shipment of narcotics to a single recipient. Instead, defendant was set up to sell small amounts of drugs to different groups of users—some addicted to a stimulant and some addicted to a depressant. By transporting separate types of drugs for separate groups of purchasers, defendant is subject to separate punishments. Consequently, the trial cоurt did not err in imposing separate sentences for counts 2 and 4.

B.

Possession of Heroin and Transportation of Heroin; Possession of Methamphetamine and Transportation of Methamphetamine

In defendant‘s supplemental briefing on the issue of whether section 654 applies to his separate sentences for possession for sale and transportation for sale of the same narcotic, defendant adheres to his view he may not be separately sentenced for transportation of heroin for sale and transportation of methamphetamine for sale. However, the People concedе section 654 applies to stay his separate sentences for possession of heroin for sale and transportation of heroin for sale. Likewise, the People concede the stay also applies to defendant‘s separate sentences for possession of methamphetamine for sale and transportation of methamphetamine for sale. We accept the concessions.

When police officers discover a defendant in an automobile in possession of a controlled substance, section 654 applies to preclude separate punishments for the same act of transporting for sale the controlled substance and possessing it for sale. ( [holding that § 654 applied to convictions for possession of heroin for sale and transportation of the same heroin for sale]; [same]; see also , citing with approval [holding possession, sale, and attempt to transport heroin constitute only one act].) Here, the trial court erred in imposing separate sentences for defendant‘s possession for sale and transportation for sale of the same controlled substance on the same occasion. Under section 654, either the sеntence for possession of heroin for sale or the sentence for transportation of heroin for sale must be stayed. So too on remand, either the sentence for possession of methamphetamine for sale or transportation of methamphetamine for sale must be stayed.

C.

Being Armed in the Commission of a Narcotics Offense on the Same Occasion as Being a Felon in Possession of a Firearm

Defendant next contends the trial court erred in imposing separate punishments for being a felon in possession of a firearm and the enhancements for being armed in the commission of a narcotics offense. As we explain, the contention has merit.

In Jones, the California Supreme court noted the fundamental principle that “[s]ection 654 prohibits multiple punishment for a single physical act that violates different provisions of law.” (.) The single physical act in Jones was the defendant‘s possession of a loaded .38-caliber revolver in a door panel of the car he was driving. (Id. at p. 352.) Based on possession of the single firearm, the defendant was convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon, carrying a readily accessible concealed and unregistered firearm, and carrying an unregistered firearm in public. (Ibid.) The trial court sentenced thе defendant to serve separate terms for each of these three convictions. (Ibid.) The Jones court, however, concluded section 654 applied to stay the sentences for all but one of the convictions. (Ibid.)

In striking two of the three sentences for possession of the same firearm, the California Supreme ‍‌‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌​‌​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‍Court acknowledged various firearm statutes address differing risks to the public. (.) For example, felons in possession of concealable firearms implicate “‘the risk to public safety deriv[ing] from the type of person involved.‘” (Ibid., quoting .) By contrast, possession of a loaded firearm “‘strikes at the hazard arising when any person carries a loaded firearm in public‘” because “‘the mere fact the weapon is loaded is hazardous, irrespective of the person carrying it.‘” (, quoting Harrison, at p. 122.) However, both convictions may arise out of the same possession of a single firearm on the same occasion. (Ibid.)

Jones considered an approach to section 654 for firearm convictions that relied on the “‘intent and objective’ test” to determine whether the statutory stay on sentences applied. (.) The Jones court, however, rejected the proposition multiple intents or objectives could preclude section 654 from applying to possession of a firearm on a single occasion, explaining: “Finding a single objective here might resolve this particular case. But what if the evidence also showed that the defendant wanted to intimidate rival gang members, or go hunting, or harbored any other of the myriad possible objectives for illegally possessing a firearm? Would multiple punishment be allowed in that case? Or what if the evidence does not show what the defendant‘s objective was? A defendant does not have to talk to the police. What is the court to do then? Rather than force the court to divine what objective or objectives the defendant might have had in possessing the firearm, we find it better to rely on section 654‘s actual language in resolving this single-act case. Accordingly, we conclude this case should be decided on the basis that it involves a single act or omission that can be punished but once. [] It might make sense to punish more severely a firearm possession that violates multiple penal provisions than a firearm possession that violates only one penal provision. Any time it wishes, the Legislature can change the law and permit multiple punishment in a situation like this. But we must interpret the statutes as they exist. Because defendant‘s convictions were based on a single act, section 654 prohibits multiple punishment.” (.)

As the People point out, this case differs from Jones in that the separate sentences for the firearm possession in this cаse were not imposed for convictions of separate substantive offenses. Instead, the issue in this case is whether the enhancements imposed on another offense (i.e., to enhance the sentence for defendant‘s narcotics-related convictions) must be stayed due to the sentence imposed for defendant‘s conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm.

The California Supreme Court addressed the application of section 654 to sentence enhancements in (Ahmed). As this court has previously explained, “The Ahmed court concluded that section 654 may apply to sentence enhancements arising from the circumstances of the crime and not imposed based on the status of the offender. (.) As our Supreme Court noted, sometimes separаte enhancements apply to different aspects of the same substantive offense. (Id. at p. 163.) Nonetheless, the high court noted that considerations of whether section 654 requires an enhancement to be stayed will generally be unnecessary because the sentence enhancement statutes themselves will more often indicate whether multiple punishments may be imposed. Thus, ‘[o]nly if the specific statutes do not provide the answer should the court turn to section 654.’ (Ahmed, at pp. 159-160.)” (.)

Here, defendant‘s sentence enhancements were imposed under section 12022, subdivision (c). Subdivision (c) of section 12022 provides: “Notwithstanding the enhancement set forth in subdivision (a),3 a person who is personally armed with a firearm in the commission of a viоlation or attempted violation of Section 11351, 11351.5, 11352, 11366.5, 11366.6, 11378, 11378.5, 11379, 11379.5, or 11379.6 of the Health and Safety Code shall be punished by an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for three, four, or five years.”

The language of section 12022, subdivision (c), does not address whether the firearm enhancement for one of the enumerated narcotics offenses must be stayed if defendant also has a separate conviction for a firearm offense.

Consequently, under , we proceed to consider whether section 654 applies.

Ahmed involved multiple enhancements imposed for the same crime and yielded the holding that “when applied to multiple enhancements for a single crime, section 654 bars multiple punishment for the same aspect of a criminal act.” (, italics added & omitted.) Nonetheless, the California Supreme Court‘s decision proves instructive where it explained: “When [section 654] was enacted in 1872, sentence enhancements as we know them today did not exist. But on its face, its language applies to enhancements. Enhancements are ‘provisions of law’ under which an ‘act or omission’ is ‘punishable.’ Accordingly, as a default, section 654 does apply to enhancements when the specific statutes do not provide the answer. [] But enhancements are different from substantive crimes, a difference that affects how section 654 applies to enhancements. Provisions describing substantive crimes, such as the assault with a firearm of this case, generally define criminal acts. But enhancеment provisions do not define criminal acts; rather, they increase the punishment for those acts. They focus on aspects of the criminal act that are not always present and that warrant additional punishment.” (.)

Section 654 applies when the aspect of a sentence enhancement punishes the exact criminal conduct for which a defendant has been separately convicted and sentenced. ( (Wynn); (Calles); (Douglas).)

The defendant in Wynn was convicted of, among other things, assault with a deadly weapon and was subject to a sentence enhancement for the same use of a deadly weapon that attached to his conviction for burglary. (.) The Wynn court held section 654 applied. In so holding, Wynn noted the California Supreme Court has previously “found significance in the fact that section 654 uses the terminology ‘act or omission’ [citation] and thus ‘prohibits multiple punishment per act’ in contrast to section 12022.53 which ‘do[es] so per crime.‘” ( fn. 10, italics omitted, quoting .) Thus, the Wynn court concluded, “the enhancement under section 12022, subdivision (b)(1) for personally using a deadly or dangerous weapon during the commission of the burglary is based on an act or omission performed by Wynn during the [burglary] offense, namely, using the nunchaku.” (.)

In , the appellate court held section 654 applied to bar imposition of both a prison term for leaving the scene of an accident and а sentence enhancement for leaving the scene of the same accident that attached to a gross vehicular manslaughter conviction. (Id. at pp. 1215-1217.) As the Calles court explained, section 654 applies because “[t]here was only one act of leaving the scene of an accident.” (.)

The same reasoning was employed in . Douglas involved sentences for kidnapping for purposes of robbery, a kidnapping enhancement for forcible oral copulation, and a kidnapping enhancement for rape all arising out of the same kidnapping. (Id. at p. 1392.) The People conceded one of the sentences for the kidnapping enhancement had to be stayed under section 654 but arguеd the second kidnapping enhancement was proper because the defendant in that case formed a subsequent intent to commit sexual assault after the kidnapping began. (Ibid.) The Douglas court disagreed and explained that “[t]here was only one kidnapping; the kidnapping for robbery was the same as the kidnapping which gave rise to the two enhancements.” (Id. at p. 1395.) Consequently, “the trial court had no grounds to punish defendant again for the identical kidnapping. Although the kidnapping was committed with the independent and additional intent to commit sexual offenses, defendant was sentenced separately for each of those sexual offenses, which accounted for his culpability for those offenses. No additional punishment was warranted.” (Id. at pp. 1394-1395.)

Here, defendant was convicted of section 29800, subdivision (a)(1), based on the .38-caliber handgun found on the floor of the minivan he was driving when he was pulled over by the police. The four arming enhancements imposed under section 12022, subdivision (c), pertained to the same possession of the firearm on the same occasion. To paraphrase Calles and Douglas: there was only one gun lying on the floor of the van. (; .) The criminal act for which defendant was convicted and the aspect of the enhancements attached to his sentence were identical, and therefore section 654 applies.

The People contend separate sentences аre warranted because “there was substantial evidence to support the trial court‘s implied finding that [defendant‘s] possession of the firearm was antecedent to and separate from the primary offense of transporting methamphetamine.” We disagree. At trial, the People‘s case focused exclusively on proving defendant‘s possession of the firearm, controlled substances, and drug paraphernalia at the time of defendant‘s arrest. The People‘s evidence did not even address the possibility defendant possessed the firearm before the controlled substances. Although the People note defendant testified “he was in the hotel prior to getting into his vehicle and driving,” this does not provide adequate support for an inference defendant possessed the gun separately from the controlled substances.

We also reject the People‘s contention defendant had differing objectives for the singular possession of the firearm. Under the California Supreme Court‘s reasoning in Jones, the possibility that multiple objectives can be inferred for a single instance of possessing a firearm does not allow for multiple punishments. (.) Here, section 654 applies to the arming enhancements that attach to the same conduct as fоrmed the basis for his conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm.

The sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm carries a potential term of three years in prison. (§§ 18, 29800, subd. (a)(1).) The longest potential term for the enhancement for being armed in the commission of a narcotics offense enumerated in section 12022, subdivision (c), is five years. Thus, the sentence for the armed commission of a narcotics crime enhancement is greater than the sentence for the being a felon in possession of a firearm offense. On remand, the trial court shall maintain the sentence enhancement of section 12022, subdivision (c), for one of the unstayed counts of defendant‘s narcotics-related convictions. (E.g., .)4

DISPOSITION

Defendant‘s convictions are affirmed. The matter is remanded to the trial court for resentencing consistent with Penal Code section 654 and this opinion in order to stay either the sentence for defendant‘s conviction of possession of heroin for sale or transportation of heroin for sale. The trial court shall also stay the sentence either for defendant‘s conviction of possession of methamphetamine for sale or transportation of methamphetamine for sale. The trial court shall stay the sentence enhancements under Penal Code section 12022, subdivision (c), for all but one of thе unstayed counts of defendant‘s narcotics-related convictions as well as the sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm.

The clerk of the superior court is then directed to prepare a new abstract of judgment reflecting the changes in sentence and to forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Raye, P. J., and Nicholson, J., concurred.

Appellant‘s petition for review by the Supreme ‍‌‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌​‌​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‍Court was denied October 12, 2016, S235700.

Notes

1
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3
Subdivision (a)(1) of section 12022 provides: “Except as provided in subdivisions (c) and (d), a person who is armed with a firearm in the commission of a felony or attempted felony shall be punished by an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for one year, unless the arming is an element of that offense. This additional term shall apply to a person who is a principal in the commission of a felony or attempted felony if one or more of the principals is armed with a firearm, whether or not the person is personally armed with a firearm.”
4
Our conclusion defendant may be subject to only one sentence enhancement for use of the firearm in the commission of his narcotics offenses obviates the need to address whether the stays of some of his narcotics-related sentences (as explained in pt. IV.B., ante) also require stays of attached firearm enhancements.
*
See footnote, ante, page 603.
Read the detailed case summary