1

Filed 6/28/24 P. v. Pearson CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or 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 ONE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

FREDERICK EARL PEARSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A168388

 (Solano County

 Super. Ct. No. FCR362307)

Defendant Frederick Earl Pearson was convicted by jury of possession 

of a firearm by a felon and possession of ammunition by a felon, and 

sentenced to two years for possession of the firearm and eight months 

(consecutively) for possession of the ammunition. Defendant raises a single 

issue on appeal—the sentence on one of the counts should have been stayed 

under Penal Code section 654.1 We agree and remand for resentencing. 

BACKGROUND

A private investigator for a bail bond company chased down defendant, 

mistaking him for someone else. Believing he saw a gun magazine on 

defendant, the investigator tased him. After the two struggled briefly on the 

ground, the investigator handcuffed and searched defendant, and then 

searched the immediate vicinity, finding a gun with a partially loaded 

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2

magazine. The investigator locked the gun in a vehicle and contacted the 

police.

When officers arrived, they retrieved the handgun from the 

investigator. It contained a 31-round magazine, loaded with 18 rounds of 

nine-millimeter ammunition. The gun was also inoperable because it was 

missing a firing pin. Defendant said he knew the firing pin was missing, and 

he had the gun for protection. When the police searched defendant, they 

found some additional rounds of the same type of ammunition in his clothing.

The Solano County District Attorney charged defendant with 

possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)) and possession of 

ammunition by a felon (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1)). A jury convicted him of both 

counts, and the trial court sentenced him to a midterm of two years for 

possession of the firearm and eight months, one-third the midterm, for 

possession of the ammunition.

DISCUSSION

Section 654 provides in 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.” (Id., subd. (a).) 

Plainly stated, section 654 “precludes multiple punishments for a single 

act or indivisible course of conduct.” (People v. Assad (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 

187, 200.) “ ‘Whether a course of criminal conduct is divisible and therefore 

gives rise to more than one act 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 be punished for any one of such offenses but not 

for more than one.’ ” (People v. Rodriguez (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1000, 

1005.) “ ‘If, on the other hand, defendant harbored “multiple criminal 
3

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.” ’ ” (Ibid.)

A trial court’s section 654 determination, either express or implied, will 

be affirmed if supported by substantial evidence. (People v. Brents (2012) 

53 Cal.4th 599, 618.) Substantial evidence is evidence that is reasonable, 

credible, and of solid value. (People v. Armstrong (2016) 1 Cal.5th 432, 450.) 

“ ‘We review the trial court’s determination in the light most favorable to the 

respondent and presume the existence of every fact the trial court could 

reasonably deduce from the evidence.’ ” (People v. Vang (2010) 

184 Cal.App.4th 912, 915–916.)

Defendant relies on People v. Lopez (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 132 (Lopez),

to support his claim the trial court should have stayed either the sentence for 

possession of the firearm or possession of the ammunition. In Lopez, the 

defendant possessed a loaded firearm and was convicted of both unlawful 

possession of a firearm and unlawful possession of ammunition, and 

sentenced separately on the two convictions. (Id. at pp. 134–135, 137.) The 

Court of Appeal reversed, concluding section 654 barred punishment for both 

offenses. (Lopez, at p. 138.) Defendant’s “obvious intent was to possess a 

loaded firearm”—one “ ‘indivisible course of conduct’ ” punishable as such 

under section 654. (Lopez, at p. 138.) As the court observed, “the appellate 

courts should not ‘parse[] the [defendant’s] objectives too finely.’ ” (Ibid., 

quoting People v. Britt (2004) 32 Cal.4th 944, 953 (Britt).)

The circumstances in this case are similar. Defendant possessed a gun 

with a partially loaded magazine and a few loose bullets of the same caliber 

as those in the magazine. 
4

The Attorney General points out that unlike in Lopez, the loose 

ammunition was not in the gun, but in defendant’s clothing. We conclude 

this distinction is of little consequence.

Defendant had on his person both the partially loaded gun and the 

loose bullets. The bullets were of the same type and caliber as the bullets in 

the magazine, and had they been loaded into the magazine, rather than being 

immediately handy for loading into the magazine, there is no question 

section 654 would require a stay of one of the sentences. (Lopez, supra, 

119 Cal.App.4th at p. 138; see also People v. Broadbent (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 

917, 922–923 [“Courts have found section 654 prohibits punishing a 

defendant for both being a felon in possession of a firearm and unlawful 

possession of ammunition when all of the ammunition in question was loaded 

into the firearm or had been fired from it.”].) 

Moreover, the only evidence at trial as to defendant’s intent in having 

both the gun and the bullets was his statements to police that he possessed 

the gun for protection. In other words, there was no evidence he had 

different or multiple objectives in possessing the loaded firearm and the 

additional bullets. (See People v. Sok (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 88, 100 [error 

not to stay sentence where there was “no evidence in the record that would 

support the trial court’s implied factual finding that [the defendant] had 

different or multiple objectives in possessing the loaded firearm and 

possessing the ammunition in the gun itself”].)

The Attorney General suggests that because the firearm was 

inoperable, the trial court could have inferred defendant possessed the 

unloaded ammunition for a separate purpose other than protection, such as 

for sale or barter. In the absence of any other evidence, we conclude it is too 

far a stretch to conclude that the mere fact the gun was at that moment 
5

inoperable, constitutes substantial evidence defendant had a “separate 

purpose” with respect to the loose bullets. In short, heeding the principle not 

to “parse[] the [defendant’s] objectives too finely” (Britt, supra, 32 Cal.4th at 

p. 953), we conclude no substantial evidence supports the trial court’s implied 

finding defendant had a separate intent and objective for possessing the

bullets in his pocket. 

Accordingly, the trial court erred in not staying the sentence on one of 

the offenses under section 654 and we remand for the court to comply with 

that statute. On remand, the court has discretion to choose which sentence is 

imposed and which is stayed, irrespective of which offense carries the longer 

term. (§ 654, subd. (a); see People v. Mani (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 343, 379.) 

DISPOSITION

Defendant’s sentence is vacated, and the case is remanded to the trial 

court to comply with section 654 and stay execution of sentence for either 

possession of a firearm or possession of ammunition. The court shall send an 

amended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation. The judgment is otherwise affirmed. 
6

_________________________

Banke, J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________

Humes, P. J.

_________________________

Siggins, J.

 Retired Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, 

assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California 

Constitution.