1

Filed 9/27/23 P. v. Greer CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. RONALD DEAN GREER et al., Defendants and Appellants. E076749 (Super. Ct. No. FVI1300018) OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Daniel W. Detienne, Judge. Affirmed. 818 Law Group , Brett A. Greenfield and Falamak Ab romson , for Defendant and Appellant, Ronald D. Greer. Siri Shetty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant, Bianca A. Stanch. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Arlene Sevidal and Christopher P. Beesley, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.2 I

. INTRODUCTION Defendant and appellant Ronald Greer’s four

- year - old daughter, Samiah Downing, died of dehydration while locked in a room at home. A jury convicted him and his girlfriend, defendant and appellant Bianca Stanch, of first degree murder, torture, and abuse. The trial court sentenced both to a term of 25 years for the murder conviction , a consecutive term of seven years to life for the torture conviction, and a six

- year concurrent term for the child abuse conviction. Stanch and Greer argue (1) the trial cour t failed to instruct the jury that it had to find defendants acted with malice aforethought to convict them of first degree murder, (2) the court erroneously found that separate sentences were appropriate for each conviction, and (3) the matter must be rem anded for resentencing under recently enacted legislation. Greer also argues the trial court erroneously denied his motion for a new trial. We reject defendants’ contentions and affirm the judgment.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Greer’s ex

- girlf

riend gave birth to Samiah in 2008

. She started living with him and Stanch full

- time in June 2012. Stanch did not like Samiah and often disciplined her harshly. In July 2012, Greer and Stanch asked their friend, S.R., to babysit Samiah. J ust after they left her in S.R.’s care, Sami a h quickly drank a bottle of water

. She told S.R.3

that she was not allowed to drink water at home. Although Greer and Stanch did not ask S.R. to watch Samiah overnight nor bring her a change of clothes, S.R. ended up watchin g Samiah for three to five days. About a month later, Stanch and Samiah went over to S.R.’s house to have their hair done

. Stanch told Samiah to sit quietly in one spot, but did not instruct her own child to do the same. Samiah looked at S.R. for permission to do anything. During another visit, S.R. made sandwiches for her children and asked whether Samiah wanted one. Stanch told Samiah that if she had a sandwich, she could not have a burger later, but Stanch gave her child a sandwich uncondition ally . S.R. noticed that Samiah had what looked like a welt on her eye. Stanch said that she had spanked Samiah with a belt and accidentally hit her eye. Around the same time, Samiah’s teachers noticed that she ate much more food during breakfast than he r peers and drank an unusual amount of water. Stanch had to pick up Samiah at school once because she wet her pant s. Her teacher noticed Stanch was rough with her, yelled at her, and gave her angry looks. Stanch told Samiah’s teacher not to give her wat er. On another occasion, Samiah’s teacher noticed what looked like a belt buckle mark above her eye. The teacher’s aides thought it was a black eye. Samiah told her teacher that Stanch “whooped her” the night before. But when Greer dropped her off that morning, he said she fell off the bed and hit her head on a dresser.4

Samiah’s teacher made a referral to Child Protective Services. A social worker spoke with Greer, Stanch, and Samiah, who reported that Stanch hit her with a belt and sometimes locked h er in her room. Stanch’s cousin, Rayshawn, lived with her and Greer toward the end of 2012. He saw Stanch whip Samiah with a belt multiple times every day. Although Greer was present, he never tried to stop Stanch. Both Greer and Stanch often withheld food and water from Samiah, sometimes for multiple days. They both told Rayshawn not to give Samiah anything. Rayshawn also saw Stanch force Samiah to stand in a corner for hours as punishment. Stanch’s cousin, Sharelle, learned that Greer taped Samiah’ s wrists and ankles to stop her from drinking water. Sharelle also learned that Samiah drank cleaning supplies because she was so thirsty. Rayshawn’s girlfriend, Destinee, lived with Greer and Stanch in the summer of 2012. She also saw Stanch taping Sami ah’s hands and ankles together before putting her
to bed. Greer did not stop Stanch or help Samiah. Destinee also saw Stanch regularly beat Samiah with a belt and saw Greer and Stanch confine Samiah in her bedroom by duct taping the door shut. Although Greer hit Samiah, he did not hit her as often or as hard as Stanch did. In December 2012, Stanch repeatedly whipped Samiah with a cord. Stanch then poured a pot of boiling water on Samiah’s ba ck. Rayshawn told Stanch to stop, but Greer5

did nothing to stop her. Stanch then took Samiah to her bedroom and began whipping her with the cord again. Later that evening, Greer and Stanch went out to dinner while Rayshawn watched Samiah. As he was leav ing, Greer told Samiah, who had not had water for two or three days, that she would get water when they got back if she was good. Greer then locked Samiah in her bedroom and left. When they returned several hours later, Samiah was dead. Greer decided to bury Samiah in the desert. He and Rayshawn wrapped her body in a sleeping bag, carried her to the car, and then drove to the desert with Stanch. Greer and Rayshawn dug a small grave and buried Samiah. Greer and Stanch told Rayshawn to tell people that S amiah was visiting relatives and offered to pay him hush money. Rayshawn, however, told his sister what happened, and her husband contacted the police. Law enforcement exhumed Samiah’s body and observed she had multiple facial injuries. Rayshawn later to ld law enforcement what had happened. An autopsy revealed that Samiah had suffered extensive injuries across her entire body , indicat ing she had been whipped. There were fresh scald wounds on her back. She was malnourished and significantly underweight. The coroner concluded that she died of dehydration

. A jury convicted Greer and Stanch of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) , 1 torture (§ 206) , and child abuse (§ 273a, subd. (a)) , with an enhancement for willful

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.6

harm resulting in death (§ 12022.95)

. The jury found true the enhancement allegation that they had in flicted great bodily injury on Samiah ( § 12022.95)

. The jury, however, found a torture special circumstance allegation against Stanch not true (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(18)). The trial court sentenced Greer and Stanch to 32 years to life in state prison. The trial court sentence consisted of 25 years to life for the murder with a consecutive seven years to life for the torture , plus a concurrent term of six years for the child abuse conviction. The court stayed the sentence for the enhancement.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Greer’s New Trial Motion After the jury convicted Greer, he moved for a new trial on the first degree murder conviction under section 1181(6). He argued insufficient ev idence supported the jury’s finding that he acted willfully, deliberately, or with premeditation . Therefore , the jury could have convicted him of only second degree murder. The trial court denied the motion, finding that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to convict Greer of first degree murder. When a defendant moves for a new trial under section 1181(6), the trial court sits as a “13th juror” and examines the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient to prove
the defendant ’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. ( Porter v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 125, 133.) The court has “broad discretion” in determining whether the evidence7

is sufficient, and its decision will not be reversed “‘absent a manifest and unmistakable
abuse of that discreti on.’” ( People v. Dickens (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1245, 1252.) When reviewing the trial court’s decision, we consider “ the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it contains substantial evidence

— that is, eviden ce which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value

— from which a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” ( People v. Mendoza (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1056, 1068

- 1069.) Defendant was prosecuted under two theories of firs t degree murder: (1) Samiah’s murder was willful, deliberate, and premeditated, and (2) the murder was committed by torture. The pertinent difference between the theories is that murder

- torture does not require proof that the defendant intended to kill t he victim , while the first theory does. Instead, murder

- torture requires only proof that the defendant intended “ to inflict extreme and prolonged pain on the person killed while that person was still alive.” (CALCRIM No. 521.) As a result, the trial cour t only had to find there was sufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation to uphold the jury’s first degree murder verdict. In any event, defendant challenges only the trial court’s finding that there was sufficient evidence of premeditation. We conclude there was substantial evidence that Greer acted with deliberation and premeditation and so the trial court properly denied his motion for a new trial.8

“‘“ Deliberation ” refers to careful weighing of considerations in forming a co urse of action; “ premeditation ” means thought over in advance. [Citations.] “ The process of premeditation

. . . does not require any extended period of time .” ’” ( People v. Halvorsen (2007) 42 Cal.4th 379, 419.)
In People v. Anderson (1968) 70 Cal.2d 15, the California Supreme Court

“ identified three categories of evidence relevant to determining premeditation and deliberation: (1) events before the murder that indicate planning; (2) a motive to kill; and (3) a manner of killing that reflects a preconcei ved design to kill. ” ( People v. Gonzalez (2012) 54 Cal.4th 643, 66 3 .) These factors are “‘descriptive, not normative’

. . . are not all required . . . nor are they exclusive in describing the evidence that will support a finding of premeditation and deli beration.” ( Ibid

. ) We therefore “need not accord them any particular weight.” ( People v. Halvorsen , supra , 42 Cal.4th at p. 420.) Substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding that Greer acted with premeditation and deliberation. Greer not only let Stanch physically abuse Samiah repeatedly for months, he often participated in the abuse himself. Although he did not hit Samiah as often or as hard as Stanch did, he still hit her many times. On more than one occasion , Greer taped Samiah’s hands and ank les together so she could not drink water. He often withheld water from Samiah for so long that she would drink cleaning supplies and her teacher noticed she drank an unusual amount of water at school. Greer also withheld food from Samiah for days at a time, which caused her to eat an unusual amount
at sch ool. At the time of her death, she was malnourished and unusually thin.9

Greer’s conduct in the hours before Samiah’s death also suggest s that he acted deliberately and with premeditation. After letting Stanch hit Samiah repeatedly with a cord, Greer did nothing when Stanch then poured boiling water on Samiah. He did not intervene when Stanch then took Samiah into her room and resumed whipping her with the cord. At that point, Samiah had not had water for two or three days, yet Greer locked her in her ro om and went out to dinner, causing her to die of dehydration within a few hours. When Greer returned, he did not summon medical help for Samiah, but buried her body in the desert while offering Rayshawn money to keep quiet about the murder. From this evid ence, which we must view in the light most favorable to the judgment, the jury could reasonably find that Greer acted deliberately and with premeditation. (See People v. Whisenhunt (2008) 44 Cal.4th 174, 201

- 202 [evidence of “continuing and escalating act s of abuse” in two

- month period supported finding of premeditation and deliberation] ; People v. Mincey (1992) 2 Cal.4th 408 [victim’s extensive wounds and injuries showed deliberation and premeditation]; People v. Koontz (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1041, 1081

- 1082 [ defendant’s conduct to prevent summoning medical care showed killing was deliberate and with premeditation ].) Because substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding that Greer was guilty of first degree murder, the trial court properly denied his motion for a new trial. Greer argues otherwise, relying on various cases in which parents were found guilty of second degree murder for the death of their young children. (See People v.
Jones (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 420; People v. Latham (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 31 9; People10

v. Rolon (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1206; People v. Burden (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 603.) But in each case, the defendant was charged and convicted of second degree murder and argued the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. ( People v. J ones , supra , at p. 442; People v. Latham , supra , at p. 321; People v. Rolon , supra , at p. 1211; People v. Burden , supra , at pp. 606

- 607.) None of the cases Greer relies on addressed whether the evidence was sufficient to support a defendant’s conviction for first degree murder, so they do not apply here. ( People v. Hatt (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 321, 326 [“ A case is not author ity for a proposition not considered. ”].)
B. Jury Instructions Greer and Stanch contend their murder convictions must be reversed because the jury instructions impermissibly “allowed the jury to impute malice ” to them as an aider and abettor based on their pa rticipation in the underlying crimes in violation of their rights under federal and California law

. 2 We disagree. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human with malice aforethought. ( § 187, subd. (a).) Malice is express “when there is manifested a deli berate intention to unlawfully take away the life of a fellow creature.” ( § 188, subd. (a)(1).) Malice is implied “when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.” (§ 188, subd. (a)(2).)

2 Stanch withdrew this argument in her reply brief. Later, however, Stanch moved for and was granted the opportunity to reassert the argument in a supplemental brief. We construe Greer’s joinder notice as joining Stanch’s argument in her supplemental brief.11

First degree murder occurs when the murder is willful, premeditated, and deliberate. ( § 189, subd. (a).) First degree torture

- murder is a form of willful, premeditated, and deliberate murder. ( § 189, subd. (a).) “To prove torture murder, the prosecution must establish ‘“a willful, deliberate, and premeditated intent to cause extreme pain or suffering for the purpose of revenge, extortion, persuasion, or another sadistic purpose.” ’ ” ( People v. Streeter (2012) 54 Cal.4th 205, 237 .) California law previously provided that a defendant who acted without malice aforethought still could be liabl e for murder under the felony

- murder rule. ( People v. Eynon (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 967, 972.) Senate Bill No. 1437 changed the law “to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kil l, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life.” (Senate Bill No. 1437; Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1, subd. (f).) Section 188 now provides that “[m] alice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime.” ( § 188, subd. (a)(3).) Instead, a defendant must act with malice aforethought “in order to be convicted of murder.” ( § 188, subd. (a)(3)

. ) Senate Bill No. 1437 a lso amended section 189 to restrict felony

- murder liability to require that the perpetrator of an enumerated felony be the actual killer, aid and abet the actual killer with the specific intent to kill, or be “a major participant in the underlying felony [ who] acted with reckless indifference to human life.” (§ 189, subd. (e)

. )12

CALCRIM No. 521 explained the elements of torture

- murder as follows: “ The defendant murdered by torture if: 1 . He or she willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation intended t o inflict extreme and prolonged pain on the person killed while that person was still alive; 2. He or she intended to inflict such pain on the person killed for the calculated purpose of revenge, extortion, persuasion, or any other sadistic reason;
3. The acts causing death involved a high degree of probability of death; AND 4. The torture was a cause of death .” In defendants’ view, this instruction allowed the jury to convict them of murder without a finding of malice. CALCRIM No. 520, en titled “First or Second Degree Murder With Malice Aforethought , ” told the jury that the elements of murder are “1A. The defendant committed an act that caused the death of another person; OR 1 B. The defendant Ronald Greer had a legal duty as a parent to care for Samiah Downing and the defendant failed to perform that duty and that failure caused the death of another person; AND 2. When the defendant acted or failed to act, he or she had a state of mind called malice aforethought

. ” (Italics added.)
The instruction then explained express and implied malice. The instruction defined express malice as “he or she unlawfully intended to kill.” As for implied malice, the instruction stated: “ The defendant had implied malice if: [ ¶ ] 1. He or she intentionally: committed th e act or failed to act; [ ¶ ] 2. The natural and probable consequences of the act or failure to act were dangerous to human life; [ ¶ ] 3. At the time he or she acted or failed to act, he or she knew his or her act or failure to act was13

dangerous to human life; [ ¶ ] AND 4. He or she deliberately: acted or failed to act with conscious disregard for human life. ” CALCRIM No. 521 explained that defendants could be guilty of first

- degree murder under a murder

- by

- torture theory. The instruction stated: “ The defendant is guilty of first degree murder if the People have proved that the defendant murdered by
torture. The defendant murdered by torture if: [ ¶ ] l. He or she willfully deliberately, and with premeditation intended t o inflict extreme and prolonged pain on the person killed while that person was still alive; [ ¶ ] 2. He or she intended to inflict such pain on the person killed for the calculated purpose of revenge, extortion, persuasion, or any other sadistic reason; [ ¶ ] 3. The acts causing death involved a high degree of probability of death; [ ¶ ] AND [ ¶ ] 4. The torture was a cause of death. ” The jury also received instructions on aider

- and

- abettor liability. CALCRIM No. 400 said, “ A person may be guilty of a cri me in two ways. One, he or she may have directly committed the crime. I will call that person the perpetrator. Two, he or she may have aided and abetted a perpetrator, who directly committed the crime. [ ¶ ] A person is guilty of a crime whether he or she committed it personally or aided and abetted the perpetrator. CALCRIM No. 401 instructed the jury: “ To prove that the defendant is guilty of a crime based on aiding and abetting that crime, the People must prove that: [ ¶ ] 1. The perpetrator committe d the crime; [ ¶ ] 2. The defendant knew that the perpetrator intended to commit the crime; [ ¶ ] 3. Before or during the commission of the crime, the14

defendant intended to aid and abet the perpetrator in committing the crime; [ ¶ ] AND [ ¶ ] 4. The defen dant’s words or conduct did in fact aid and abet the perpetrator’s
commission of the crime. [ ¶ ] Someone aids and abets a crime if he or she knows of the perpetrator’s unlawful purpose and he or she specifically intends to, and does , in fact, aid, facilit ate, promote, encourage, or instigate the perpetrator’s commission of that crime. [ ¶ ] If all of these requirements are proved, the defendant does not need to actually have been present when the crime was committed to be guilty as an aider and abettor. [ ¶ ] If you conclude that defenda nt was present at the scene of the crime or failed to prevent the crime, you may consider that fact in determining whether the defendant was an aider and abettor. However, the fact that a person is present at the scene of a crime or fails to prevent the crime does not, by itself, make him or her an aider and abettor. ” Defendants argue that the instructions, in particular the aider

- and

- abettor instructions , allowed the jury to erroneously impute malice based on their partici pation in the underlying crimes

. In support, they rely on People v. Maldonado (2022) 301 Cal.Rptr.3d 919

. A fter defendants filed their supplemental opening brief, however, the Maldonado court granted the People’s petition for rehearing and vacated the op inion. ( Id . at p. 919.) We therefore cannot consider it. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(e) (1)(A).) But, on rehearing, the Maldonado court held the jury instructions impermissibly allowed the jury to convict the defendant of first degree murder on a theory of imputed malice made invalid by S enate Bill No. 1437 . ( People v. Maldonado (2023) 8715

Cal.App.5 th 1257 , 1264 .) The jury in that case was instructed on the elements of aiding and abetting a lying

- in

- wait murder , which included CALCRIM No. 401 . ( Ibid .) The Maldonado court held that CALCRIM No. 401 was ambiguous and could be read as instructing the jury that the defendant was guilty of first degree lying

- in

- w ait murder as an aider

- and

- abettor even if he only intended “to injure or intimidate the victim in a surprise attack ” and encouraged the direct perpetrator ’s attack. ( Ibid

. ) Under the law of murder as amended by S enate Bill No. 1437, however, the defendant could be found guilty of first degree murder only i f he acted with malice, meaning that he knew the attack was dangerous to human life and he acted with conscious disregard for hum an life. ( Id. at p. 12 64

. ) As a result, Maldonado held tha t the ambiguity created by CALCRIM No. 401 left open the possibility that the jury convicted the defendant of murder under a

now - invalid theory of imputed malice. ( I bid .) We find Maldonado persuasive and follow it here. We therefore agree with defendants that CALCRIM No. 401 wrongly suggest ed that the jury could find them guilty of first degree murder as an aider

- and

- abettor irrespective of their mental state. (See People v. Langi (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 972, 981 ; People v. Powell (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 689, 714.) The instructions told the jury that either defendant was guilty of first degree murder “if it found that (1) the killing resulted from the actual killer ’ s intentional act; (2) [ Greer or Stanch ] aided and abetted that intentional act ; and (3) the killer “deliberately performed [the act] with knowledge of the danger to, and with conscious disregard for, human life ’

— whether or not [ Greer or Stanch ] knew of or16

consciously disregarded the danger to human life .” ( People v. Langi , supra , at p. 98 1 .) As in Maldonado , t his instruction thus created an ambiguity under which the jury could have found either defendant guilty of first degree murder as an aider

- and

- abettor under an imp uted malice theory “without finding that [ he or she ] pe rsonally acted with malice , ” but instead only intended to aid the direct perpetrator (the other defendant) in commi t t ing

an intentional act
. ( I

d

. at p. 982 ) For instance, the jury could have found one defendant directly withheld water from Samiah , causing her death, while the other defendant only intended to help the direct perpetrator withhold the water. The People do not challenge Maldonado ’s analysis as far as it goes , but contend there is a “next step” in the analysis, which asks whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instructions as conveying an invalid theory (imputed malice murder)

. In Maldonado ’s now

- vacated opinion, the court did not address this issue , which the People raised for the first time in a petition for rehearing. ( People v. Maldonado , supra , 87 Cal.App.5th at p. 1268 .) On rehearing, the court assumed without deciding that “the reasonable likelihood standard ” applied in the Maldonado defendant’s appeal from a summary denial of his sec tion 1172.6 petition while noting that the standard “originated in the direct appeal context.” ( Id

. at p. 1268 , fn. 8.) We agree with the People that the reasonable likelihood standard applies here

. (See Boyde v. California (1990) 494 U.S. 370, 380 [reje cting “standard which makes the inquiry dependent on how a single hypothetical ‘reasonable’ juror could or might have interpreted the instruction”]; Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62, 73, fn. 4 [“ [W] e now17

disapprove the standard of review language in” two intervening cases that used “could have understood” and “would have understood” “and reaffirm the standard set out in Boyde ”]; People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629, 663 [adopting this reasonable lik elihood standard for assessing instructions under California law].) To satisfy the reasonable likelihood standard, a defendant “ must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the jury misconstrued or misapplied the instruction in the manner asserted. ” ( Peo

ple v. Covarrubias (2016) 1 Cal.5th 838, 926.) Put another way,

“ ‘ [t] he test is whether there is a “ reasonable likelihood that the jury .

. . understood the charge, ” in a manner that violated defendant ’ s rights. ’ ” ( People v. Pearson (2013) 56 Cal.4th 393, 476.)

“ ‘ Although a defendant need not establish that the jury was more likely than not to have been impermissibly ’ directed by the ambiguous instruction, the standard is not met if there is ‘ only a possibility ’ the jury was so directed. ” ( Peo ple v. Maldonado , supra , 87 Cal.App.5th at p. 1268 .) W e consider the instructions as a whole and the arguments of counsel to determine whether the defendant has met the standard . ( People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1202.) In the People’s view, there is no reasonable likelihood that the jury convicted defendants of murder solely as aider

- and

- abettors without finding they acted with “at least implied malice” given the jury instructions and the prosecutor’s closing argument. The People note that the standard murder instruction , CALCRIM No . 520, told the jury that defendants were guilty of murder only if they acted with express or implied18

malice. But that does not completely dispel the ambiguity created by CALCRIM No.
401 , which the trial court told t he jury applied to all counts in response to its question. While CALCRIM No. 520 told the jury defendants were guilty of murder only if they acted with malice, CALCRIM No. 40 0 also suggested they were guilty of murder as an aider

- and

- abettor if the y inten ded to help the direct perpetrator ’s intentional act

— in this case, withholding water from Samiah

— even if they did not have the requisite mental state required for murder. But we agree with the People that the prosecutor’s argument cleared up
CALCRIM No. 40 1’s ambiguity

. (See People v. Hajek and Vo (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1144,
1220 , abrogated on other grounds by People v. Rangel (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1192 , 1216 .) The prosecutor repeatedly emphasized that both defendants were guilty of murder as direct perpetrators because they both withheld water from Samiah, who died from dehydration . The prosecutor likewise repeatedly argued that defendants’ conscious decision not to give Samiah water was evidence that they acted with malice. As the prosecutor put it, “ [t] hey kn ew that was dangerous to her life. W hen they acted, knowing that danger to her life, they consciously disregarded it and did it anyways

. . . . ” “ There is malice in this killing. . .

. [T] hey caused the death by denying her water and [] they acted with m alice. They knew the danger and denied her water anyways, and because of that, they are guilty of murder. ” The prosecutor later explained aider

- and

- abettor liability , explaining that an “actual perpetrator,” such as someone who “pulls the trigger,” is as guilty of murder as19

someone who aids and abets the perpetrator

. The prosecutor then outlined how the principle could apply in this case: “ [S] o as you look at the elements of any of these crimes, be it the first degree murder, torture, child abuse, any of these, either defendant can be guilty as the direct perpetrator because they directly, for instance , denied her water to the point she died of dehydration, or you can find that

-- in fact, I think one of the defendants was the one directly denying the w ater

. And I think the other defendant w as aiding and abetting that, was facilitating or encouraging that. Now, what the direct perpetrator was doing and facilitated it by allowing her or him to do it. Allowing her to be alone with his daughter, for inst ance. Allowing her to take over the disciplinary role for instance. Knowing what she was doing to his daughter and failing to stop it. [ ¶ ] In fact, facilitating it by allowing her to be alone or to be the disciplinarian of that child

. ” After explaining aider

- and

- abettor liability, however, the prosecutor argue d that the jury that Greer was a “direct perpetrator” because he “directly deprived” Samiah of
water. The prosecutor noted that although Greer was “a direct perpetrator of these crimes,” he could be liable as an aider

- and abettor. The prosecutor explained: “[I] f you believe as you go through the facts and the three crimes charged here, that at times he was not the direct perpetrator, that he wasn ’ t the one actually running the show, he knew about it, he facilitated it by stepping back and telling [Stanch] she would take over, that she could decide when cords and belts were okay, well then, the defendant very well may be guilty as an aider and abet tor and a direct perpetrator. ” (Italics added .)20

As for Stanch, the prosecutor never argued she was guilty of any of the crimes as just an aider

- and

- abettor. Instead, the prosecutor hammered on the fact that Stanch was an actual perpetrator because she withheld water from Samiah . The prosecutor stat ed throughout his closing argument that she was guilty of first degree murder because she knowingly withheld water from Samiah to punish and torture her even though she knew that it was dangerous to Samiah’s life. In doing so, the prosecutor emphasized several times that Stanch’s conduct and inaction (withholding water) was evidence that she acted with malice. Given these arguments and the evidence showing that Stanch directly contributed to Samiah’s death by withholding water from her, it is highly un likely the jury convicted her of first degree murder as an aider

- and

- abettor. (Cf. People v. Letner and Tobin (2010) 50 Cal.4th 99, 182

- 183 [not reasonably likely jury erroneously construed ambiguous instruction on coconspirator and aider

- and

- abettor spec ial circumstance in part because the prosecutor never argued the jury “need not find intent to kill as to one of the two defendants”].) The same holds true for Greer. Although the prosecutor noted that Greer could possibly be liable for first degree murde r as an aider

- and

- abettor, the prosecutor consistently argued that he was an actual perpetrator because he withheld water from Samiah , which showed he acted with malice

. When discussing aider

- and

- abettor liability as it applied to Greer , the prosecutor no tably did not argue Greer was liable as an aider

and

- abettor for Stanch’s withholding water . Instead, the prosecutor suggested that the jury could “for instance” find that “at times” he was not the actual perpetrator because he21

did not stop Stanch’s physi cal abuse

. The prosecutor continued, however, that if the jury so concluded, then he should be found guilty as an aider and abet tor and a direct perpetrator. In short, the prosecutor did not argue either defendant was guilty as an aider

- and

abettor because he or she helped the other defendant withhold water from Samiah, although he acknowledged the jury could permissibly make that finding . (See People v. Williams (2013 ) 56 Cal.4th 630, 688 [not reasonably likely that jury erroneously interpreted ambiguous instruction on accomplice liability in part because the prosecutor “argued that defendant was a direct participant in the crimes or acted with knowledge and purpose in aiding” them].) He instead emphatically argued that defendants were both liable as direct perpetrators because they both acted with malice by withholding water from Samiah, which was the undisputed cause of her death. (See People v. Bedolla (2018) 28 Ca l.App.5th 535, 548 [“it was not reasonably likely that the jury misunderstood or misapplied the challenged instructions” where “the prosecutor ’ s closing argument

. . . reinforced a correct understanding of the instructions”].) Finally, there is a more fund amental logical problem with defendants’ argument

. The undisputed cause of Samiah’s death was dehydration , which occurred because she did not have water for two to three days while in defendants’ ca r e . Aiding and abetting the murder thus necessarily required withholding water from her. One defendant could
not knowingly aid and abet the other in withholding water from Samiah without also withholding water from her himself or herself. If, for instance, Stanch knew that Greer22

withheld wate r from Samiah for two to three days and intended to help him do so, she necessarily would have had to withhold water from Samiah too

. Both defendants therefore necessarily committed the same death

- causing act of depriving Samiah of
water , which was strong evidence that they both acted with malice. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude there is no reasonable probability that the jury convicted defendants of first degree murder under an aider

- and

- abettor theory of liability. (See People v. Mills (2012) 55 Cal.4th 663, 679.) A s a result, any ambiguity in
CALCRIM No. 400 did not violate defendants’ rights under federal or California law

. ( People v. Covarrubias , supra , 1 Cal.5th at p. 668.)
C. Separate Sentences Defendants contend the trial court erroneously imposed separate sentences for their murder, torture, and child abuse convictions. We disagree. At the time of their sentencing, section 654, subdivision (a) provided in relevant 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 provis ion.” 3

3 Section 654 has since been amended to provide in relevant part: “An act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision.” (Stats. 2021, ch. 441, § 1.)23

The statute thus precluded “multiple punishments for a single act or indivisible
course of conduct.” ( People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 294.) “‘“‘Whether a course of criminal conduct is divisible and therefore gives rise to more than one ac t within the meaning of section 654 depends on the intent and objective of the actor. If all of the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may [not] be punished

. . . for more than one.’”’ [Citation.]” ( People v. Jackson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 269, 354.) “If, on the other hand, defendant harbored ‘multiple criminal objectives,’ which were independent of and not merely incidental to each other, he may be punished for each statutory violation committed in pursuit of each objective, ‘even though the violations shared common acts or were parts of an otherwise indivisible course of conduct.’ [Citation.]” ( People v.
Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 335.) This means that “ a course of conduct divisible in time, though directed to one objective, may giv e rise to multiple convictions and multiple punishment ‘where the offenses are temporally separated in such a way as to afford the defendant opportunity to reflect and renew his or her intent before committing the next one, thereby aggravating the violatio n of public security or policy already undertaken .’” ( People v. Lopez (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 698, 717

- 718.) We review a trial court’s ruling on whether section 654 applies for substantial evidence. ( People v. McKinzie (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1302, 1368, disapp roved on other grounds in People v. Scott (2015) 61 Cal.4th 363, 391, fn . 3.)24

Substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that defendants’ three convictions were sufficiently divisible and thus warranted separate sentences. Samiah died of dehy dration, which occurred because defendants withheld water from her for two to three days before her death. Defendants’ days

- long withholding water from Samiah was thus temporally separated from the torture Stanch inflicted on Samiah in the hours before he r death. The other acts of torture, including whipping and beating Samiah and pouring boiling water on her, were not life

- threatening and thus formed a separate course of conduct from defendants’ fatally withholding water from Samiah. Between beating
Sam iah and boiling the water to pour on her, Stanch had plenty of time to reflect on her choices. T he trial court thus properly found that section 654 did not apply to defendants’ murder and torture convictions at the time of their sentencing. The trial cour t also properly found ( though impliedly) that the child abuse conviction was distinct enough from the murder and torture convictions and thus warranted separate punishment. After whipping Samiah with a cord, Stanch boiled a pot of water to pour on Samiah’s back. While the water was boiling, Stanch had sufficient time to reflect and reconsider her actions. She did not stop the abuse, but aggravated it by pouring the boiling water on Samiah’s back, causing her new, severe injuries. The trial court thus could properly find that the Stanch’s whipping Samiah and pouring boiling water on Samiah’s back were sufficiently separated in time such that separate punishment was warranted for the torture and child abuse convictions. (See People v. Goode (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 484, 493.)25

Finally, defendants argue that the case must be remanded for the trial court to exercise its newly granted discretion under recently amended section 654. (See People v.
Mani (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 343, 379 [“[S]ection 654 now provides the trial court with discretion to impose and execute the sentence of either term, which could result in the trial court imposing and executing the shorter sentence rather tha n the longer sentence.”].) Because we conclude the trial court properly found that section 654 did not preclude defendants’ separate sentences, we need not remand for the trial court to exercise its newly granted discretion under the amended statute.
IV. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

CODRINGTON J.
We concur:

RAMIREZ P. J.

McKINSTER J.