Court Opinion

ID: 9727228
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:26:52.705949+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:35.189843
License: Public Domain

THE COURT.
Defendant has filed a petition for rehearing in which he asserts, among other things, that implicit in the case and in our disposition of the case is a problem of double punishment prohibited by Penal Code section 654, which, he urges, we failed to consider and failed to deal with in the opinion.
This contention is not meritorious. We did consider the problem but did not deal with it in the opinion, primarily because the issue is entirely speculative and premature. Unless and until defendant is convicted of one or more of the charges now pending and sentenced therefor, there is no double punishment problem. (In re Ward, 64 Cal.2d 672, 676-678 [51 Cal.Rptr. 272, 414 P.2d 400]; In re Wright, 65 Cal.2d 650, 653-656 [56 Cal.Rptr. 110, 422 P.2d 998]; People v. Niles, 227 Cal.App.2d 749, 756 [39 Cal.Rptr. 11].)
Should defendant be convicted of one or more of the charges now pending, and should the trial court determine that the act for which he is convicted was the same act or omission as that for which he was previously punished within the double punishment prohibition of Penal Code section 654, the trial court may satisfy the requirements of section 654 by following a procedure such as that employed in People v. Breland, 243 Cal.App.2d 644, 652 [52 Cal.Rptr. 696] cited in the opinion.
Respondent’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied December 3, 1970. Peters, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.