Court Opinion

ID: 9952765
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-20 18:02:42.273402+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:44:25.519920
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/20/24 P. v. Wilson CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                       THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                     (Sacramento)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                                  C097887

           v.                                                                    (Super. Ct. No. 22FE009156)

 STEVEN RYAN WILSON,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Defendant Steven Ryan Wilson hit and kicked the mother of his minor child and
prevented her from leaving her home for a period of time. A jury found defendant guilty
of assault, infliction of corporal injury on a former dating partner, and false
imprisonment. It also found true a great bodily injury enhancement allegation. The trial
court sentenced defendant to three years eight months in state prison, consisting of the
following: the middle term of three years for the corporal injury conviction, a stayed
four-year term for the great bodily injury enhancement, and a consecutive eight months
(one-third the middle term) for the false imprisonment conviction. The trial court
imposed one year for the assault conviction but stayed the term under Penal Code
section 654.1

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                                             1
       Defendant now contends (1) the trial court should have stayed the sentence
for false imprisonment because all of his offenses were part of a single objective, and
(2) the one-year sentence on the assault conviction is unauthorized because the maximum
sentence for that offense is six months.
       We agree with the People that only the second contention has merit. We will
modify the judgment to impose a six-month sentence on defendant’s simple assault
conviction, stay that sentence under section 654, and affirm the judgment as modified.
                                     BACKGROUND
       In May 2022, while defendant was visiting his son and his son’s mother (mother)
to celebrate the son’s fifth birthday, he spoke with another woman on the phone. Mother
asked defendant to leave, and they began arguing. Defendant hit her in the face multiple
times. She fell to the ground and defendant continued to hit and kick her while yelling
obscenities.
       Mother asked defendant to allow their son to leave, but defendant said no and
pushed her. She opened the front door but defendant told her she was not leaving and
closed the door. Mother took the son into the bathroom. Defendant broke the door open
and punched her again.
       Mother ran to the garage and opened the automatic garage door. Defendant tried
to close the door while mother tried to keep it open. Defendant grabbed her but mother
slipped away and ran to a neighbor’s house. The son followed her. Mother had black
eyes, a concussion, bruised ribs, a cut above her eye that required stitches, and a
laceration on top of her head.
       The jury found defendant not guilty of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245,
subd. (a)(1) -- count one) but guilty of simple assault as a lesser included offense (§ 240).
It also found defendant guilty of infliction of corporal injury on a former dating partner
(§ 273.5, subd. (a) -- count two) and false imprisonment (§ 236 -- count three), and found
true a great bodily injury enhancement attached to count two (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)).

                                              2
       The probation report recommended that the trial court impose but stay sentences
for the assault and false imprisonment convictions under section 654. Defense counsel
requested the same at the sentencing hearing in December 2022, and also asked the trial
court to impose but stay the great bodily injury enhancement. The trial court sentenced
defendant to three years eight months in state prison, consisting of the following: the
middle term of three years for the count two corporal injury conviction, a stayed four-
year term for the great bodily injury enhancement, and a consecutive eight months (one-
third the middle term) for the count three false imprisonment conviction. The trial court
imposed one year on the count one simple assault conviction but stayed the term under
section 654. In rejecting a stay of the false imprisonment sentence, the trial court said it
did not know why the probation report recommended such a stay, given that the false
imprisonment involved a different victim, the son.
                                       DISCUSSION
                                              I
       Defendant contends the trial court should have stayed the sentence for false
imprisonment because all of his offenses were part of a single objective.
       Section 654 provides that “[a]n 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.” (§ 654,
subd. (a).) The statute prohibits multiple punishment when a defendant is convicted of
several crimes based on a single act or omission. (People v. Coleman (1989) 48 Cal.3d
112, 162.) It also bars multiple punishments for convictions arising out of an indivisible
course of conduct that are committed with a single criminal intent and objective. (People
v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 312 (Corpening).)
       “ ‘A trial court’s express or implied determination that two crimes were separate,
involving separate objectives, must be upheld on appeal if supported by substantial
evidence.’ ” (In re Raymundo M. (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 78, 94.) When the facts of a

                                              3
case are undisputed, the application of section 654 raises a question of law, which is
reviewed de novo. (Corpening, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 312.)
       Defendant was charged in count three with false imprisonment of mother by
violence or menace. In closing argument, the prosecutor said that to convict defendant of
the crime, the jury had to find beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) defendant intentionally
confined someone by violence or menace, and that (2) defendant made the other person
stay or go somewhere against their will. The prosecutor emphasized the evidence of
defendant’s attack and his efforts to prevent mother from leaving.
       Defendant contends the trial court incorrectly believed the false imprisonment
victim was the son rather than mother. It is true that count three charged defendant with
false imprisonment of mother, not the son. Apparently mistakenly believing otherwise,
the trial court seemed focused on the rule that section 654 does not apply to crimes of
violence against multiple victims. (See e.g., People v. King (1993) 5 Cal.4th 59, 78.)
       But we may affirm the trial court’s decision if it is correct on any applicable legal
theory. There can be no prejudicial error from erroneous logic or reasoning if the
decision itself is correct. (Estate of Beard (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 753, 776.) Here, the
record supports an implied finding that the corporal injury and false imprisonment
offenses involved separate objectives. It can be inferred from the evidence that defendant
beat mother to inflict pain, but that defendant stopped mother from leaving the house to
prevent her from obtaining help. Because it can be inferred that defendant committed
multiple and divisible acts with distinct objectives, the trial court did not err in declining
to stay the false imprisonment sentence. (See People v. Mejia (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th
1036, 1047.)
                                              II
       Defendant next contends the one-year sentence on the assault conviction
is unauthorized because the maximum sentence for that offense is six months.

                                               4
       A sentence is unauthorized if it could not lawfully be imposed under any
circumstance in a particular case. (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354.) A court
with jurisdiction may correct an unauthorized sentence at any time. (People v. Turrin
(2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1205.)
       The jury found defendant guilty of simple assault under section 240 as a lesser
included offense. The trial court imposed but stayed a sentence of one year for that
conviction. The parties agree that the sentence is unauthorized. The maximum sentence
for the offense is six months. (See §§ 240 [assault], 241, subd. (a) [“An assault is
punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment
in the county jail not exceeding six months, or by both the fine and imprisonment”].)
We agree that the judgment should be modified.
       We will modify the judgment to impose a six-month sentence on the count one
conviction for simple assault, and to stay the sentence under section 654.
                                      DISPOSITION
       The judgment is modified to impose a six-month sentence on the count one
conviction for simple assault, and to stay the count one sentence under section 654.
The judgment is affirmed as modified. The trial court is directed to amend the sentencing
minute order to reflect the judgment as modified.

                                                    /S/
                                                 MAURO, J.

We concur:

    /S/
HULL, Acting P. J.

    /S/
KRAUSE, J.

                                             5