1

Filed 5/30/14 P. v. Lewis CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MARVIN LEWIS,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A138549

 (Contra Costa County

 Super. Ct. No. 05-120643-2)

Marvin Lewis appeals from a judgment upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of 

two counts of inflicting traumatic injury to a spouse (Pen. Code,1§ 273.5, subd. (a)

(count 1 – injuries to face; count 2 – injuries to neck)). The jury also found true the 

allegation that defendant inflicted great bodily injury under circumstances involving 

domestic violence in the commission of count 1. (§§ 12022.7, subd. (e), 13700.) The 

trial court imposed concurrent two-year terms on the two counts plus an additional three 

years for the great bodily injury enhancement on count 1 for a total term of five years in 

state prison. Defendant contends that the concurrent sentences on the section 273.5 

offenses violates section 654 because the crimes were committed as part of a continuous 

course of conduct with a single intent and objective. We agree and order the judgment 

modified to stay the sentence on count 2. 

Defendant does not challenge the evidence adduced at trial that on the evening of 

January 15, 2012, he and Dawatha Lee, his wife, got into an argument at a restaurant and 

 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 
2

returned home where the argument escalated. Lee told defendant that she wanted a 

divorce and, in response, defendant grabbed her neck and threw her down onto the floor. 

Defendant alternated between beating her face and choking her. The beating lasted for 

two or three minutes. Lee suffered a swollen nose and lips, and one of her eyes was 

swollen completely closed and bruised. She also incurred red marks on her neck. Lee’s 

left eye had not yet healed at the time of the trial. 

The trial court imposed concurrent two-year terms on counts 1 and 2, finding that 

the evidence showed two different assaults divisible by time. 

Section 654 proscribes multiple punishment where several crimes are committed 

during an indivisible course of conduct with a single criminal objective.2 The divisibility 

of a course of conduct depends on the intent and objective of the defendant. “[I]f the 

evidence discloses that a defendant entertained multiple criminal objectives which were 

independent of and not merely incidental to each other, the trial court may impose 

punishment for independent violations committed in pursuit of each objective even 

though the violations shared common acts or were parts of an otherwise indivisible 

course of conduct. [Citations.]” (People v. Liu (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1135.) If 

the evidence discloses that the offenses are incident to one objective, the defendant may 

be punished for any one of them but not for more than one. (People v. Latimer (1993) 5 

Cal.4th 1203, 1207.) 

The Attorney General concedes that section 654 precludes double punishment on 

the offenses here because they were committed during an indivisible course of conduct 

with a single criminal objective. We agree that the evidence showed that defendant 

choked and hit Lee with the same intent and objective during an indivisible course of 

conduct. Section 654 thus barred imposition of concurrent terms on the offenses. “It has 

long been established that the imposition of concurrent sentences is precluded by section 

 

2

Section 654 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 . . . .”
3

654 [citations] because the defendant is deemed to be subjected to the term of both 

sentences although they are served simultaneously.” (People v. Miller (1977) 18 Cal.3d 

873, 887.) Accordingly, we will modify the sentence to stay the term on count 2. 

DISPOSITION

The judgment is modified to stay the sentence on count 2. The trial court is 

ordered to prepare an amended abstract of judgment and to forward it to the Department 

of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

_________________________

Rivera, J.

We concur:

_________________________

Reardon, Acting P.J.

_________________________

Humes, J.