1

Filed 7/18/16 P. v Harding CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

KATHLEEN ANN HARDING,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A146249

 (Contra Costa County

 Super. Ct. No. 05-140999-4)

Kathleen Harding was charged with driving while under the influence with injury 

(Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a)) and reckless driving causing great bodily injury (id., 

§§ 23103, subd. (a), 23105). She waived jury trial and was convicted of both offenses 

after submission to the court on documentary evidence and stipulated facts. She 

challenges here only the trial court’s decision to impose, rather than stay, a concurrent 

sentence for reckless driving causing great bodily injury. The People agree. We do as 

well, and remand for resentencing.

I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The facts are not disputed, and we recite them only briefly. On May 5, 2013, 

Harding was observed by several individuals driving erratically on Interstate 

Highway 680. She was under the influence of multiple prescription medications. As 

other cars attempted to avoid Harding’s vehicle, another motorist was forced up an 

embankment and her vehicle overturned. Harding continued without stopping. She was 

later apprehended by police on a freeway off-ramp. As a result of the accident, the victim 

suffered a coma with brain injury and permanent paralysis.
2

Harding was charged by information with driving while under the influence with 

injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a); count 1) and with reckless driving causing great 

bodily injury (§§ 23103, subd. (a), 23105; count 2). As to count 1 it was alleged Harding

inflicted great bodily injury resulting in brain injury and paralysis. (Pen. Code § 12022.7, 

subd. (b).)

Harding waived jury trial and agreed to submit the matter to the court on 

documentary evidence and stipulated facts. She was found guilty of both charges and the 

sentencing enhancement was found to be true. At sentencing, the court denied Harding’s 

motions to dismiss or strike the great bodily injury enhancement. The court imposed a 

16-month mitigated prison term on count 1, with a consecutive five-year term for the 

great bodily injury enhancement. The court imposed a concurrent three-year term on 

count 2. Harding filed a timely notice of appeal.

II. DISCUSSION

As noted, Harding challenges only the court’s decision to impose a concurrent 

term for count 2, reckless driving causing great bodily injury. Penal Code section 654 

prohibits multiple punishment for a singular course of conduct, even if it violates more 

than one statute.

1

(People v. Latimer (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1203, 1207–1208.) Harding’s 

violation of Vehicle Code sections 23103, subdivision (a), and 23105—reckless driving 

with injury—was based on the same conduct as her conviction and sentence for driving 

under the influence and causing great bodily injury. As the trial court observed at the 

sentencing hearing, the crimes here “are not independent of each other, it’s basically the 

same conduct charged under different statutes.” Penal Code section 654 does not permit 

the imposition of a concurrent sentence: “ ‘[T]he imposition of concurrent sentences is 

precluded by section 654 [citations] because the defendant is deemed to be subjected to 

the term of both sentences although they are served simultaneously. [Citation.] Instead, 

 

1

“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. . . .” (Pen. Code, § 654, subd. (a).)
3

the accepted procedure is to sentence defendant for each count and stay execution of 

sentence on certain of the convictions to which section 654 is applicable.’ ” (People v. 

Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 350, 353.) The People appropriately concede that the sentence 

on count 2 must be stayed, and agree that the matter must be remanded for that purpose.

III. DISPOSITION

The matter is remanded for resentencing. On remand the court shall stay the term 

imposed on count 2, pursuant to Penal Code section 654, and the clerk of the court shall

prepare an amended abstract of judgment.

_________________________

Bruiniers, J.

We concur:

_________________________

Jones, P.J.

_________________________

Needham, J.