Court Opinion

ID: 9544711
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:00:28.337388+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:13:30.579919
License: Public Domain

SCHAUER, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I concur in the majority’s formulation of the rule that “Where recently stolen property is found in the conscious possession of a defendant who, upon being questioned by the police, gives a false explanation regarding his possession or remains silent under circumstances indicating a consciousness of guilt, an inference of guilt is permissible and it is for the jury to determine whether or not the inference should be drawn in the light of all the evidence.” (Ante, p. 755.) I must dissent, *764however, (1) from the holding that Penal Code section 6541 precludes sentencing defendant on each of the valid judgments of conviction rendered on Count V (burglary) and Count VI (grand theft) ; and (2) from all that portion of the majority’s discussion which today appears to return applicability of the subject statute to a nebulous confusion which I thought had been finally eliminated when, less than one year ago, we filed People v. Tideman (April 27, 1962) 57 Cal.2d 574, 584-588 [13a, 14, 15, 13b, 16, 17, 13c, 6b] [21 Cal.Rptr. 207, 370 P.2d 1007],
The majority apparently feel compelled to reach this holding by the assertion in Neal v. State of California (1960) 55 Cal.2d 11, 19 [22] [9 Cal.Rptr. 607, 357 P.2d 839], that “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.” (Italics added.) The majority paraphrase this language, characterizing it as one of the “principles” governing the application of section 654 that were “clarified by” the Neal opinion. (Ante, p. 760.)
This summary and uncritical disposition of the matter calls to mind the oft-quoted warning of a great jurist: “It is one of the misfortunes of the law that ideas become encysted in phrases and thereafter for a long time cease to provoke further analysis.” (Holmes, J., dissenting in Hyde v. United States (1912) 225 U.S. 347, 384, 391 [32 S.Ct. 793, 56 L.Ed. 1114, 1132].) On two previous occasions I have attempted to analyze the meaning—or lack of it—of the so-called “intent and objective test” for applying Penal Code section 654, and to show that continued adherence to such a formula can only lead to absurdity. (See my dissenting opinion in Neal v. State of California (1960), supra, 55 Cal.2d 21; and my concurring and dissenting opinion in Seiterle v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 397, 403 [20 Cal.Rptr. 1, 4, 369 P.2d 697, 700].) I do not propose to repeat what I said in those opinions; but a further analysis is imperative when the majority of this court persist in invoking the so-called “intent and objective test” *765to reach a result which not only does violence to Penal Code section 654 but is wholly and irreconcilably out of step with contemporary American judicial thought.
It is not too late for such a reappraisal. A careful reading of the majority opinion in Neal discloses that the above quoted language purporting to adopt the so-called “intent and objective test” was not necessary to the decision in that case. As the majority there viewed the record, the defendant had committed but a single act: his convictions for arson and attempted murder were said to rest “upon defendant’s act of throwing gasoline into the bedroom of Mr. and Mrs. Raymond and igniting it.” (Id. at p. 18 [14] of 55 Cal.2d.) Yet such a case presents no problem in applying Penal Code section 654, for under the terms of that statute a single act may be punished only once. The Neal majority expressly recognize this rule (id. at p. 19 [19]), quoting from People v. Knowles (1950) 35 Cal.2d 175,187 [14] [217 P.2d 1] : “If only a single act is charged as the basis of the multiple convictions, only one conviction can be affirmed, notwithstanding that the offenses are not necessarily included offenses.” As Justice (now Circuit Judge) Duniway, speaking for a unanimous court, observed shortly after Neal was handed down, “We think that the case could have rested upon that ground alone.” (People v. Fields (1961) 190 Cal.App.2d 515, 517 [1] [12 Cal.Rptr. 249].) Under the majority’s view of the facts in Neal, section 654 by its clear language was applicable and in that aspect the case was controlled by ample precedent. There was therefore no need to go on to discuss what rule might be invoked in an entirely different class of cases, i.e., those involving not a single act—the only situation embraced by the language of the code section—but a “course of criminal conduct” encompassing multiple acts; such acts being connected not in a single crime but only in the multifarious plan of the criminal for the commission of divers crimes requiring separate acts (see e.g., In re Chapman (1954) 43 Cal.2d 385, 389 [3] - 390 [6] [273 P.2d 817]; People v. Slobodion (1948) 31 Cal.2d 555, 561-563 [6] [191 P.2d 1]). It is elementary that a case is authority for only those propositions of law which are necessary to the decision.2
*766At the outset I address one question to the majority, which should have a direct answer: Does the conviction and punishment, or trial and acquittal, of a defendant for second degree burglary, under circumstances identical with those here extant, through operation of Penal Code section 654 bar subsequent prosecution, conviction and punishment of that defendant for murder when it is discovered that murder was committed by him, and that the homicide as well as grand theft was included in his “intent and objective” when he made the burglarious entry? (Concealment of the homicide until after sentence or acquittal for the lesser offense was of course included in the “intent and objective.”)
If we respect logic the answer necessarily implied by the majority’s holding is affirmative. The portion of section 654 relied on by the majority reads “An act . . . made punishable in different ways by different provisions of this code may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no ease can it be punished under more than one; . . .” The section further provides that “an acquittal or conviction and sentence under either one [of the applicable sections] bars a prosecution for the same act . . . under any other.” (Italics added.) Manifestly an acquittal is the full equivalent of conviction and sentence as a bar to further prosecution. Since the majority hold that the burglary and grand theft of which defendant has been convicted constitute but one act within the operation of section 654 it indubitably follows that if the defendant had first been accused, and separately tried for and acquitted, of burglary he could not thereafter be prosecuted for the grand theft (however conclusive the proof) for “an acquittal . . . under either one [of the applicable sections] bars a prosecution for the same act . . . under any other.” The language and applicability of the section are equally clear in both cases. It is also equally clear, therefore, that if punishment of the defendant for grand theft is precluded if he is punished for burglary then prosecution for murder is barred if previously he has been convicted and punished for, or acquitted of, either the burglary or the grand theft.
*767Responsibility for this grotesque result rests on the Neal dictum and today’s application of that dictum, not on the act of the Legislature. Section 654 unmistakably speaks in the singular of “An act or omission which is made punishable in different ways by different provisions” of the Penal Code. It does not speak in the plural of acts or omissions which independently constitute different crimes and which as such are made punishable in different ways by different provisions of the code. The real vice of the majority holding lies in confusing the word “act” (or “omission”) with “the intent and objective of the actor.” Elaborating such confusion the majority in effect add to section 654 a provision so that as applied here it reads, “An act... made punishable in different ways by different provisions of this code may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no case can it be punished under more than one; furthermore, if any such act. .. is one of a series of acts constituting separate crimes punishable in different ways by different provisions of this code, but all of which acts are a part of ‘a course of criminal conduct’ included in ‘the intent and objective of the actor’ the defendant may be punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one.” (Italics added.) The inevitable effect of this gratuitous ruling will be to create a bargain era for criminals: any number of crimes can be committed for the price of one, provided only that all be included in “the intent and objective of the actor.”
The so-called “intent and objective test” compounds any inherent difficulties of the situation by grievously misdirecting the trial court’s attention. By its terms section 654 (ante, fn. 1) prohibits double punishment for the same “act or omission,” rather than for a series of separate and distinct acts assertedly inspired by one “objective.” It is true that we have taken the word “act” as used in section 654 to mean something more than simply each physical movement of the criminal, and have recognized that it may in legal contemplation also refer to instances “where a course of conduct violated more than one statute and the problem was whether it comprised a divisible transaction which could be punished under more than one statute within the meaning of section 654.” (People v. Brown (1958) 49 Cal.2d 577, 591 [13] [320 P.2d 5].) The solution to the latter problem, however, is to be found not in the facile invocation of an all-embracing formula, but in a close analysis of the acts involved in the particular ease. “Where the question is whether a transaction is divisible or indivisible, each ease must be resolved on its facts.” (People v. Brown *768(1958), supra.) The factual determination to be made by the trial court is, in obedience to the terms of the statute, “whether a separate and distinct act can be established as the basis of each conviction, or whether a single act has been so committed that more than one statute has been violated.” (People v. Knowles (1950), supra, 35 Cal.2d 175, 187 [14].) Further sharpening the latter distinction, we explained in In re Chapman (1954), supra, 43 Cal.2d 385, 390 [7], that “It is only when the two offenses are committed by the same act or when that act is essential to both that they may not both be punished.” (Italics added.) An identical rule has been adopted by the highest courts of New York in applying their counterpart to our Penal Code section 654: in the leading case of People ex rel. Maurer v. Jackson (1957) 2 N.Y.2d 259, 264 [159 N.Y.S.2d 203, 206 [2, 3] 140 N.E.2d 282], the Court of Appeals declared (citing our decision in In re Chapman (1954), supra) that double punishment would be prohibited “if there were an act which itself violated one statute and was a material element of the violation of another” (italics added); and in People v. Oliver (1957) 4 App.Div.2d 28 [163 N.Y.S.2d 235, 241 [10]], affd. (1958) 3 N.Y.2d 684 [171 N.Y.S.2d 811, 148 N.E.2d 874]], the court expressed the view that only one punishment could be imposed where an act of assault “was an essential ingredient of the crime of burglary” as pleaded and proved in that ease. (Italics added.)
These are not infallible criteria—it is self-delusion to believe that such criteria may exist in the law—but broad guidelines which have on the whole been observed with good sense and results fair to all parties. In attempting to apply the so-called “intent and objective test,” however, the attention of the trial court is in each instance distracted from the factual analysis necessary to achieve the purpose of section 654, and instead becomes enmeshed in a post hoc speculation as to the scope of the criminal’s “objective.” But in many eases the latter will have been ill-defined even in the criminal’s own mind, especially with regard to such matters as sudden interruptions by third parties and alternative means of perpetration, escape, or concealment.
The application of the so-called “intent and objective test” is apparently a game that any number can play. Prior to Neal there were, it is true, eases in which this court reviewed the record on the question of double punishment and concluded, contrary to the implied determination of the trial court, that the evidence showed only a single punishable act or an indivis*769ible transaction. (See e.g., People v. Brown (1958), supra, 49 Cal.2d 577, 590-591 [13] ; People v. Logan (1953) 41 Cal.2d 279, 290 [11] [260 P.2d 20] ; People v. Knowles (1950), supra, 35 Cal.2d 175, 186 [13a] ; People v. Kehoe (1949) 33 Cal.2d 711, 715 [1] [204 P.2d 321].) Since Neal, however, the District Courts of Appeal have multiplied manyfold the instances in which one or more convictions have been set aside on appeal for asserted violation of Penal Code section 654.3 A study of the opinions discloses that the Neal dictum has seemingly been interpreted as license to indulge at the appellate level in unbridled speculation as to the scope and content of the criminal’s “objective.” No longer is the evidence on the issue of double punishment viewed in the light most favorable to the express or implied finding of the trier of fact. That salutary principle of appellate review has, in many of these cases, given way to flights of conjecture and tenuous distinctions having but a remote connection with the record.
One or two examples will suffice. In the pre-Neal ease of People v. O’Farrell (1958) 161 Cal.App.2d 13 [325 P.2d 1002], the defendant and two accomplices, armed with burglar’s tools and a pistol, broke into a private club between 3 and 4 a. m. They were interrupted in their endeavors by the presence of a night janitor and by the subsequent arrival, one after another, of four other club employes. Each employe was detained at gunpoint, marched to a restroom, and tied up. The criminals forced open a safe and escaped with its contents and with the wallet of one of the employes. The defendant was convicted of burglary, kidnapping for the purpose of robbery, and armed robbery; the convictions were affirmed on appeal. In rejecting the contention that section 654 prohibited separate punishments for kidnapping and robbery, the reviewing court held that under proper instructions the jury found these crimes to be “independent” and that “there is adequate support for its finding.” (Id. at p. 22 [4b].) In the post-Neal ease of People v. Velarde (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 231, 233 [2] [19 Cal.Rptr. 832], the defendant and an accomplice forced the owners of a store to go at gunpoint into a back room, bound them, and took money from one and from the cash register. Quoting the so-called “intent and objective test” from Neal, *770the appellate court held that convictions of robbery and kidnapping for the purpose of robbery constituted double punishment in violation of Penal Code section 654. The court distinguished the O’Farrell case on the ground that it “involved a burglarious entrance for the purpose of theft. The unexpected events occurring after the entrance resulted in kidnapping and other crimes which were not a part of the original intent. Each new and different purpose occurred when the defendants unexpectedly and at separate times discovered five different employees under different circumstances. Each discovery led to separate dealings with each person by defendants and none of the acts done was a part of the original plan, each being separate and divisible from the others.” (Italics added.) By such untrammelled speculation the O’Farr ell case was forced into the Neal mold. Yet shortly afterwards in Downs v. State of California (1962) 202 Cal.App.2d 609, 614-615 [10] [20 Cal.Rptr. 922], on facts apparently indistinguishable from O’Farrell, it was held that an armed burglar who held up and bound at gunpoint two intruding night janitors could not be convicted of both burglary and robbery. Rejecting a contention that “the trier of facts could well have found that the petitioner’s original intent was to enter to commit theft and that the intent to commit robbery originated in his mind after the completion of the first offense,” the appellate court reinterpreted the evidence and stated, “Regardless of the wording of the information, petitioner entered the telephone company building with the single purpose to rifle its safe, hoping, no doubt, that this could be accomplished without interference, but prepared for that event by carrying a gun which he intended to and did threateningly use to consummate the crime. To urge that these gun-toting miscreants had limited their original object to safe-cracking only, upon the unlikely assumption that nightly janitorial service was not performed in the telephone company building is unrealistic and unsupported by the record.” (Italics added.) Were the gun-toting miscreants in O’Farrell any less “prepared”?
Finally, it bears emphasis that similar speculation has been resorted to in an effort to uphold multiple convictions in the face of the Neal dictum. It is, obviously, a sword that cuts both ways. In People v. Fields (1961), supra, 190 Cal.App.2d 515, the evidence showed that the defendant and an accomplice drove a truck alongside a young girl and forcibly seized her, dragging her into the cab. She was placed between the two men and told that she was “going for a ride.” They drove *771for 20 or 30 minutes away from the built-up area where the girl was seized, then dragged her from the truck, knocked her down, and raped her in turn. The defendant contended that under such authorities as People v. Wein (1958) 50 Cal.2d 383, 409-410 [42] [326 P.2d 457], and People v. Chessman (1951) 38 Cal.2d 166, 193 [33-35] [238 P.2d 1001], he could not be punished more than once for this course of conduct, as the kidnapping was incidental to the rape. The District Court of Appeal, nevertheless, speculated (id. at p. 518 [1]) that “we think that the trier of fact could well have found that the course of conduct was divisible; that the seizure and asportation of the victim, which lasted for half an hour or more, and was interrupted by a stop to buy some beer, was not, initially, with an intent to commit forcible rape, and that that intent arose in defendant’s mind a considerable time after the kidnapping. Defendant may well have begun by hoping that, with the aid of beer, he could persuade the victim to indulge his desires voluntarily. He may not, at the start, have intended to have sexual relations with her at all.” (Italics added.) On this basis the court affirmed a judgment imposing, inter alia, consecutive sentences for kidnapping and rape.
Such legal legerdemain results neither in the fair and impartial administration of criminal justice nor in public respect for the judicial process. Before we finally commit ourselves to the vagaries of application and the arbitrary outcome of the so-called “intent and objective test,” we would be well advised to consider the experience of other courts in this matter.
The majority in Neal apparently took their formulation of this “test” from a suggestion of a New York inferior court judge in People v. Savarese (1952) 1 Misc. 2d 305 [114 N.Y.S. 2d 816, 835-836 [15]] (cited in Neal at p. 19 [18] of 55 Cal. 2d). That decision, however, has been criticized in the courts of New York (People v. Zipkin (1952) 202 Misc. 552 [118 N.Y.S.2d 697, 698-699]), and no subsequent decision of the New York Court of Appeals has been found adopting the suggested rule. New York has a statute materially similar to Penal Code section 654 and upon which our provision was originally based (N.Y. Penal Law, § 1938) ; yet the highest court of that state continues to interpret and apply it in the light of the principles summarized in People ex rel. Maurer v. Jackson (1957), supra, 2 N.Y.2d 259, 264 [159 N.Y.S.2d 203, 206 [2, 3] ] : “It is clear that if separate and distinct acts were committed, and that they violated more than one section of the *772Penal Law, punishment for each of them would be proper although they arose out of a single transaction. [Citations.] It is also not open to dispute that if there were merely a single inseparable aet violative of more than one statute, or if there were an aet which itself violated one statute and was a material element of the violation of another, there would have to be single punishment.” (Italics in original.)
The majority assert, nevertheless, that the Jackson case “is consistent with the California [meaning, presumably, the Neal] rule.” (Ante, p. 761.) The contrary appears from the language of the opinion itself. The decision in Jackson rested upon alternative grounds: one was the holding that the imposition of concurrent sentences did not constitute double punishment under New York law; the other—distinct from the first and itself independently sufficient—was the holding that the double punishment statute (N.Y. Pen. Law, § 1938) was inapplicable in any event because the defendant’s two convictions were based on separate and distinct acts. The latter holding was reached in response to the following issue: “Assuming that the robbery and the assault occurred at about the same time, the amicus nevertheless maintains that the separate sentences were proper here, and we give that first consideration.” (Id. at p. 206 [2, 3] of 159 N.Y.S.2d.) While the majority find language in the opinion “indicating” that “whether two crimes are committed with the same or different intent is of great importance” (ante, p. 761), the fact remains that the New York court resolved the issue of the applicability of the double punishment statute by directing its attention to the acts committed ■ by the defendant. Thus the court reasoned (id. at p. 207 [2, 3]) that “In the case now before us the meager record will not permit us to determine precisely the acts of this defendant, e.g., whether or not the attempted robbery was incomplete before he discharged his revolver in his attempt to kill Richter, or how much time if any elapsed between those separate acts. Only the indictment* may guide us as to the acts constituting the crimes. From the plea of guilt thereto, we know that defendant admitted not only the act of attempting to rob Richter and the assault incidental thereto, i.e., with intent to commit that felony, but also a separate act of ‘aiming and discharging a loaded pistol’ at Richter ‘with intent to kill’ him.” (Italics added.) The court concluded (id. at p. 208 [2, 3]) that “We recognize that section 1938 is not by its terms limited to included crimes, *773although it is clear that the statute will there apply; if, however, the acts are separable, it will not apply. Here, one single act is not the basis of the two charges; they were separable and distinct and involved two different kinds of conduct, even though arising out of the same transaction.” (Italics added.) This is the language that we used in In re Chapman (1954), supra, 43 Cal.2d 385, 389 [6] - 390 [7], cited and discussed by the New York court (at pp. 206-207 [2, 3] of 159 N.Y.S.2d).
Similarly, in a case where a defendant was convicted and given consecutive sentences on one count of attempted burglary and a second count of possession of burglar’s tools, both offenses apparently growing out of the same course of criminal conduct, the trial court denied a writ of error coram nobis sought on the ground that the defendant had been doubly punished for the same act. In the Court of Appeals the defendant argued that ‘‘acquisition or the obtaining of possession of burglar’s tools constitutes nothing more than a step or preparation in furtherance of an intent to commit a burglary and, . . . the act of possession, occurring simultaneously with the attempt, in accord and in line with the predominant intent, which is burglary, may be used as a basis for prosecution and punishment for one or the other, but not for both.” (Italics added.) This is Neal language; in a memorandum opinion, however, the Court of Appeals affirmed the order denying relief. (People v. Cassell (1959) 6 N.Y.2d 762 [186 N.Y.S.2d 661, 662, 159 N.E.2d 206].) And even after the appearance of Neal the courts of New York have continued to direct their attention to whether a separate and distinct act can be established as the basis of each count of a multiple conviction, and have refused to invoke the so-called “intent and objective test” suggested in Savarese. (See e.g., People v. McCall (1962) 16 App.Div.2d 313 [228 N.Y.S.2d 52, 57 [3]]; People v. La Vallee (1961) 15 App.Div.2d 611 [222 N.Y.S.2d 462, 464 [1, 2]].) We have in Neal, therefore, the curious spectacle of a majority of this court—in a case, it bears remembering, where (on the subject issue) it was not necessary to do more than apply existing law—seizing upon a suggestion of a New York inferior court judge which the highest courts of that same jurisdiction have repeatedly declined to accept.
If the courts of New York (and, as hereinafter will be shown, of other sister jurisdictions as well) have by implication rejected the so-called “intent and objective test,” the United States Supreme Court has rejected it expressly. In Munson v. McClaughry (8 Cir 1912) 198 F. 72 [42 L.R.A. N.S. *774302], the defendant had been convicted and given consecutive sentences on one count of breaking and entering a post office building with intent to commit larceny and a second count of larceny committed after such entry; in holding that the defendant could be punished but once for these offenses the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reasoned that “A criminal intent to commit larceny of property of the government is an indispensable element of each of the offenses of which the petitioner was convicted, and there can be no doubt that where one attempts to break into or breaks into a post office building with intent to commit larceny therein, and at the same time commits the larceny, his criminal intent is one, and it inspires his entire transaction, which is itself in reality but a single continuing act.” (Id. at p. 74.) This is Neal language; yet shortly thereafter the United States Supreme Court held in an identical case that the imposition of consecutive sentences for such offenses was proper. (Morgan v. Devine (1915) 237 U.S. 632 [35 S.Ct. 712, 59 L.Ed. 1153].) A district court judgment that relied on Munson was reversed, and Munson and a similar Ninth Circuit decision were overruled. The high court, in a unanimous opinion prepared by Mr. Justice Day, quoted the language from Munson hereinabove set forth, and rejected its reasoning with the observation (id. at p. 640) : “But the test is not whether the criminal intent is one and the same and inspiring the whole transaction, but whether separate acts have been committed with the requisite criminal intent” (italics added).
The majority attempt to overcome the effect of the Morgan decision by pointing out that there is no federal statute analogous to our Penal Code section 654. This is obvious, and I do not cite Morgan as direct authority but rather for the persuasive effect of the language of a distinguished Justice of our highest court. Yet the majority, on their part, rely on such cases as Prince v. United States (1957) 352 U.S. 322 [77 S.Ct. 403, 1 L.Ed.2d 370, 59 A.L.R.2d 940], and Heflin v. United States (1959) 358 U.S. 415 [79 S.Ct. 451, 3 L.Ed.2d 407],4 and imply that those decisions have somehow weakened *775the force of Morgan v. Devine. This is demonstrably erroneous, as the cases are easily distinguishable. In Prince, for example, where the decision turned on the construction of a statute different from that in issue in Morgan v. Devine, the court carefully limited its holding by stressing that “we are dealing with a unique statute of limited purpose .... It can and should be differentiated from similar problems in this general field raised under other statutes. The question of interpretation is a narrow one, and our decision should be correspondingly narrow.” (Prince v. United States (1957) supra, 352 U.S. 322, 325.) Indeed, on this ground the court itself distinguished the Prince case from Morgan v. Devine. (Id. at p. 328, fn. 9.) The Morgan rule is still living law. It has consistently been followed in the federal circuit courts (see e.g., Clark v. United States (4th Cir. 1959) 267 F.2d 99, 101 [1] ; Hamilton v. United States (5th Cir. 1958) 253 F.2d 421, 422 [2]; Herndon v. United States (4th Cir. 1953) 207 F.2d 412 [1, 2] ; United States v. Lynch (7th Cir. 1947) 159 F.2d 198, 199 [3] ; Doss v. United States (5th Cir. 1946) 158 F.2d 95, affirming United States v. Doss (W.D. La. 1946) 66 F.Supp. 243, 244-245) and, as just noted, it has recently been recognized by the United States Supreme Court itself.
The fact that such distinguished courts have rejected the so-called “intent and objective test” should not be lightly disregarded. It should compel us, rather, to reconsider our hasty and unnecessary adoption of that “test” in Neal, and to strike it from our jurisprudence before further damage is done.
The majority opinion in the case at bench illustrates all too well the errors that will result from continued reliance on the Neal formula. In applying the “test” the majority first purport to define the scope and content of defendant’s “objective.” But the record, as is so often true, is devoid of evidence directed to or even remotely bearing on such a question. Accordingly, the majority are compelled to speculate (ante, p. 762) the “only reasonable conclusion” in the circumstances is that “the entry of the hospital and the taking of the air compressor were parts of a continuous course of conduct and were motivated by one objective, theft; *776the burglary, although complete before the theft was committed, was incident to and a means of perpetrating the theft.” (Italics added.) On this basis the majority hold that ‘‘defendant can be punished for either offense but not for both.” Yet each involved a separate act and each separate act was a complete crime.
This holding, in my view, does violence to both the letter and the spirit of our statutes, to precedent, and to sound penological practice. Penal Code section 459 provides in relevant part that “Every person who enters any house [or other enumerated structure] . . . with intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony is guilty of burglary.”5 As this court observed in a leading decision construing section 459 (People v. Barry (1892) 94 Cal. 481, 482 [29 P. 1026]), ‘‘This section of the code is clear and concise, and its meaning obvious. By its express terms, the offense is perfect and complete when the entry is made with the intent to commit grand or petit larceny, or any felony.” This fundamental principle of our law of burglary has never been questioned, and remains equally in vigor today. (See e.g., People v. Michaels (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 194, 198 [1] [13 Cal.Rptr. 900] ; People v. Beem (1961) 192 Cal.App.2d 207, 211 [6] [13 Cal.Rptr. 238] ; People v. Roy (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 551, 554 [1] [346 P.2d 415] ; People v. Davis (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 365, 369 [6] [346 P.2d 248].) Thus, in People v. Morlock (1956) 46 Cal.2d 141, 146 [5] [292 P.2d 897], we distinguished on this basis the crime of robbery, requiring a specific intent to steal, from that of burglary, “where the crime is complete when the one accused has entered the house of another with intent to commit any felony.”
From this principle (which the majority acknowledge) it follows ineluctably that the act which is punished as burglary is simply the defendant's act of entering with the proscribed intent. But an entirely different act must be committed by the defendant before he may be found guilty of grand theft: i.e., the act of feloniously taking and carrying away personal property of another (of a type or value defined in Penal Code section 487) with the specific intent, and without claim of right, to permanently deprive the owner of his interest in such property. (Pen. Code, § 484.) It is manifest that, from a physical standpoint, either act may be committed without *777committing the other. This factual independence is reflected in the law: the cases upholding convictions of grand theft without burglary (i.e., by persons lawfully on the premises, or involving property not taken from a structure listed in Penal Code section 459) are too common to require citation; and as to burglary, it is well settled that an entry with the proscribed intent is unlawful even though, because of frustration or voluntary abandonment, the defendant commits no further offense on the premises (People v. Clifton (1957) 148 Cal.App.2d 276, 279 [3] [306 P.2d 545] ; People v. Stewart (1952) 113 Cal.App.2d 687, 691 [6] [248 P.2d 768] ; People v. Sturman (1942) 56 Cal.App.2d 173, 180-181 [7] [132 P.2d 504]), and hence that to support a conviction of burglary the evidence need not show that the defendant also committed theft (People v. Murphy (1959) 173 Cal.App.2d 367, 373 [4] [343 P.2d 273] ; People v. Garrow (1955) 130 Cal.App.2d 75, 84 [5] [278 P.2d 475]; People v. Rhodes (1934) 137 Cal.App. 385, 391 [6] [30 P.2d 1026] ; People v. McGowan (1932) 127 Cal.App. 39, 41-42 [1] [14 P.2d 1036].) The offenses of burglary and grand theft are therefore committed neither “by the same act” nor by an “act . . . essential to both” (In re Chapman (1954), supra, 43 Cal.2d 385, 390 [7]); rather, they are committed by separate and distinct acts and so are separately punishable “even though those acts were closely connected in time and were part of the same criminal venture” (id. at p. 389 [6]).
Prior to Neal the rule just stated had been uniformly applied by our courts for more than half a century.6 Some of these eases involved burglary and theft, some involved burglary and robbery, and in some a third offense such as assault was also present; but in each it was correctly held that the various judgments of conviction rested upon separate and distinct criminal acts and hence that separate punishments *778could be imposed. Indeed, the imposition of separate (either concurrent or consecutive) sentences after convictions of burglary and grand theft or robbery has consistently been the practice of our trial courts, both in the reported decisions and in many more cases that were never appealed.
The Neal decision, of course, did not involve such distinct acts as burglary and grand theft. Yet shortly after Neal the District Court of Appeal held in In re Dowding (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 418 [10 Cal.Rptr. 392], that section 654 prohibited separate punishments for burglary and robbery committed against the same victim because “the object” of the defendant’s course of conduct “was the robbery” (id. at p. 423 [7]). The court professed to recognize that “the crime of burglary was complete when petitioner and his codefendants entered the drug store with the intent to rob the druggist,” and that “a long line of decisions uniformly hold” that section 654 does not prohibit separate punishments in such a case. Nevertheless, the court declined to follow these binding precedents on the asserted ground that “they cannot be squared with” the Neal majority’s “reasoning”—i.e., the “intent and objective” dictum. In People v. Dykes (1961) 198 Cal.App.2d 75, 81 [5] [17 Cal.Rptr. 564], and in People v. Brown (1962) 200 Cal.App.2d 111, 118 [7] [19 Cal.Rptr. 36], the Dowding holding was followed without further discussion, as if the “long line of decisions” to the contrary had been expressly overruled in Neal or had never even existed. Finally, in People v. Collins (1962) 203 Cal.App.2d 611, 612 [1] [21 Cal.Rptr. 783], the court rather laconically summed up the situation by saying that the law concerning separate punishments for burglary and grand theft “has undergone extreme changes of late.”7 It is upon this shaky foundation that the majority erect today’s holding. Once again it would be pru*779dent to consider the experience of other courts with this same problem.
As of 40 years ago the editors of Bishop’s Criminal Law (9th ed. 1923), volume 1, pages 788-789, could conclude on this point that the authorities “almost unanimously” supported the proposition that “If in the night a man breaks and enters a dwelling house to steal therein, and steals, he may be punished for two offences or one, at the election of the prosecuting power. . . . [A] first count may set out a breaking and entering with intent to steal, and a second may allege the larceny as a separate thing, and thereon the defendant may be convicted and sentenced for both.” In so holding in Morgan v. Devine (1915), supra, 237 U.S. 632, the United States Supreme Court observed that “Notwithstanding there is a difference in the adjudicated eases upon this subject, we think the better doctrine recognizes that, although the transaction may be in a sense continuous, the offenses are separate, and each complete in itself.” (Id. at p. 639.)
Except for today’s unique holding there is no longer any substantial “difference in the adjudicated cases” on this issue. As the highest courts of our sister states one after another have held that burglary and larceny are committed by separate and distinct acts and hence that separate punishments may be imposed for each, the rule has become virtually unanimous. A few examples will serve to illustrate this fact.
Federal Law. As noted above, early federal cases held that a defendant could be punished but once for burglary and larceny of post office property. (Munson v. McClaughry (8th Cir. 1912), supra, 198 F. 72; Halligan v. Wayne (9th Cir. 1910), 179 F. 112 [102 C.C.A. 410].) Following the holding to the contrary in Morgan v. Devine (1915), supra, 237 U.S. 632, contemporary federal decisions now authorize separate punishments for such offenses. (Clark v. United States (4th Cir. 1959), supra, 267 F.2d 99, 101 [1]; Hamilton v. United States (5th Cir. 1958), supra, 253 F.2d 421, 422 [2].)
Pennsylvania. In the early case of Commonwealth v. Bird-sail (1871) 69 Pa. (19 P.F. Smith) 482, 485 [8 Am.Rep. 283], the court said in dictum that burglary and larceny committed at the same time could not “be punished as separate offences.” A similar dictum had appeared in Stoops v. Commonwealth (1822) 7 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 491, 498 [10 Am.Dec. 482]; and a lower court so held in Commonwealth ex rel. Wendell v. Smith (1936) 123 Pa. Super. 113 [186 A. 810, 811 [1, 2], But in Commonwealth ex rel. Moszczynski v. Ashe *780(1941) 343 Pa. 102 [21 A.2d 920], the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reconsidered the matter. In a well reasoned opinion the court unanimously rejected its earlier view and held that separate punishments may be imposed for burglary and larceny committed in the course of the same criminal venture. Stressing the factual independence of the acts thus made punishable, the court stated (id. at pp. 921-922 [8, 9] [21 A.2d]), “The crime of wilfully and maliciously breaking and entering any building with intent to commit any felony therein is completed when the felon breaks into the building . . . .with the intent above named. . . . Whatever felony is committed in the building broken into is separate and distinct from the offense of breaking and entering into that building.”8 The rule thus adopted is the rule in Pennsylvania today. (Commonwealth ex rel. Comer v. Claudy (1954) 174 Pa.Super. 494 [102 A.2d 227, 228 [4]-229 [5-7]] ; Commonwealth ex rel. Vanderpool v. Burke (1953) 174 Pa. Super. 88 [99 A.2d 904, 905], and cases there cited.)9
Other Jurisdictions. An increasing number of states have in recent years adopted the subject rule authorizing separate punishments for burglary and larceny committed in the same criminal transaction: e.g., Maryland,10 New Jersey,11 Ohio,12 *781South Carolina,13 Virginia,14 and Colorado.15
The majority justices of this court (in promulgating their minority view) dismiss these respectable authorities on the asserted ground that none turned on the construction of a statute similar to our Penal Code section 654. While the opinions in these cases do not discuss any such statute, it does not follow that the decisions are entitled to no consideration whatever. The issue posed by section 654 is whether defendant's convictions on Count V (burglary) and Count VI (grand theft) each rest on a separate and distinct “act or omission which is made punishable in different ways by different provisions of this code . . . .” In one context or another, that issue has been considered and resolved in each of the above cited cases from our sister jurisdictions. Typical of the current reasoning of these decisions is the following language from State v. Quatro (1957) 44 N.J.Super. 120 [129 A.2d 741, 745 [9, 10]] : “A sentence for breaking and entering can be added [to a sentence for larceny or receiving stolen property] . . . , as the former, though perpetrated on the same occasion as the others, rests on a criminal act distinct from the larceny and receiving” (italics added).
Before a majority of this court hold, in effect, that convictions of burglary and grand theft do not each rest on a separate and distinct “act or omission,” some explanation would appear to be due as to why the California rule should be different from that of the rest of the nation. To say that our law is different—i.e., that we have section 654 while the other states do not—is not enough. Section 654 does not even come into play until it is shown on the facts that a single “act or omission” is being punished more than once. Does the burglar-thief in California commit acts any less distinct in perpetrating his crimes than his counterpart in Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, or Ohio?
Moreover, the subject rule is also followed in those states which do have statutes similar to our section 654.16 Thus, in State v. Hutton (1960) 87 Ariz. 176 [349 P.2d 187, 188-189 *782[1-5]], the defendant was given consecutive sentences for burglary and for grand theft committed after entering the burglarized premises. The court stated the question to be “whether the defendant . . . may be legally sentenced for both [burglary and grand theft] when the grand theft was committed in carrying out the original motive for committing the burglary.” A statute identical with our section 654 was in force. Obedient to the terms of that statute the court answered the above question in the affirmative, reasoning that ‘ ‘ Burglary and theft are two separate and distinct acts. ’ ’ The majority attempt to weaken this decision by emphasizing that the Arizona court “held that only concurrent sentences should be imposed in the interests of justice.” (Ante, pp. 761-762.) The majority, however, fail to mention that the Arizona court modified the judgment to make the sentences run concurrently only because, in the exercise of its power to reduce excessive sentences, it deemed the particular sentence imposed on that particular defendant to be excessive. Thus the court explained that “While we are not prone to disturb the trial court’s judgment in the infliction of punishment, we cannot escape the feeling that under the circumstances herein a sentence of 23 to 25 years for a burglary and the stealing of a saddle is excessive.” (Id. at p. 189 [6] [349 P.2d].) The law of the decision remains, “We rule, therefore, that the defendant could legally be sentenced for both the crimes of burglary and grand theft.” (Id. at p. 189 [1-5] [349 P.2d].)
Nor has the appearance of the Neal decision had any appreciable effect in our sister states. Prior to Neal it was held, in a jurisdiction (Utah) having a statute (Utah Code Ann. 1943, § 105-21-32) providing that “no person shall be convicted of more than one crime upon the same facts constituting such crime,” that such statute did not prohibit separate punishments for burglary and larceny committed in a single criminal venture. (Rogerson v. Harris (1947) 111 Utah 330 [178 P.2d 397, 399 [5-7]].) More than a year after Neal appeared, the same court was again presented with the question now before us. (State v. Jones (1962) 13 Utah 2d 35 [368 P.2d 262].) The defendant appealed from “convictions of burglary and larceny allegedly committed at the same place, about the same time. ’' He contended that it was error to sentence him on both charges, relying on a statute (Utah Code Ann. 1953, § 76-1-23) which provided in relevant part as follows: “An act or omission which is made punishable in different ways by different provisions .. . may be punished under *783any one . . . but in no case . . . under more than one.” It was held, again unanimously, that such statute, which is indistinguishable from our section 654, did not prohibit separate punishments for burglary and larceny. Once more seeking to discredit a significant decision, the majority assert that the Utah court relied on its previous holding in Rogerson v. Harris “without recognizing that the earlier decision had involved a statute which was quite different from the one before us.” (Ante, p. 762.)17 Perhaps the court in Jones did not explicitly articulate the differences between the two statutes. But there can be no doubt that the language of the statute now before us was there considered in detail and held inapplicable to convictions of burglary and theft. Distinguishing a ease (State v. Huntsman (1949) 115 Utah 283 [204 P.2d 448, 451-452 [8, 9]]) where it was said that a defendant could be convicted and punished but once on charges of adultery and carnal knowledge arising out of a single act of intercourse, the court in Jones reasoned (at p. 263 of 368 P.2d), “The Huntsman case reflects but one act accomplished against one female. In the instant ease the facts show 1) a breaking and entering and 2) a larceny. The entering did not include the larceny and the larceny independently was something else. Each offense required different acts, whereas in the Huntsman case a single act of intercourse constituted a violation of more than one provision of the criminal code.” (Italics in original.) Specifically analyzing the Utah statute identical with our section 654, the court noted that it “refers to one act, ’ ’ and concluded that “ Obviously a burglary in and of itself is one act, requiring no theft, and a larceny is another or second act requiring a theft.” (Italics in original.)
To sum up, the majority’s holding on the facts in the case at bench that Penal Code section 654 precludes punishing defendant for both burglary and grand theft (1) perverts clearly defined expressions of legislative intent, (2) overrules without sufficient justification a long and respectable line of California precedents to the contrary, (3) strikes down an established sentencing practice of our trial courts, and (4) runs counter to not only the overwhelming weight of authority but also the strong current of decisions in our sister jurisdictions.
*784For all of the foregoing reasons I would affirm the judgment in its entirety.
McComb, J., concurred.

 Penal Code section 654 provides in part:
“An act or omission which is made punishable in different ways by different provisions of this code may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no case can it be punished under more than one; an acquittal or conviction and sentence under either one bars a prosecution for the same act or omission under any other. ...”

 Penal Code section 654 has been discussed in four decisions of this court since Neal. In one of these (Seiterle v. Superior Court (1962), supra, 57 Cal.2d 397) the judgment denying prohibition was required on at least three grounds—each independently sufficient—other than the asserted inapplicability of section 654 (see my concurring and dissenting opinion, id. at pp. 404-406) ; and in the remaining three decisions (People *766v. Monk (1961) 56 Cal.2d 288, 300 [15] [14 Cal.Rptr. 633, 363 P.2d 865] ; People v. Carter (1961) 56 Cal.2d 549, 565 [11] [15 Cal.Rptr. 645, 364 P.2d 477]; People v. Tideman (1962), supra, 57 Cal.2d 574, 584 [13a]), all unanimous, the so-called 1 ‘intent and objective test” was not even mentioned. There is nothing whatsoever in any of these decisions which supports today’s majority holding, and to the contrary the majority’s extension of section 654 is manifestly inconsistent with the carefully researched and detailed holdings in Tideman (1962), supra, 57 Cal.2d 574, 584-588 [13a, 14, 15, 13b, 16, 17, 13c, 6b].

 Less than two years have elapsed since Neal, yet during that period the issue of double punishment has been raised in at least 18 cases before the District Courts of Appeal, and has resulted in reversal of one or more convictions in 14 of these. Several of the relevant decisions are cited hereinafter and in the majority opinion.

 Italicized in original.

 Even less relevant than Prince and Eeflin is the second group of cases cited by the majority (ante, p. 761), i.e., Ladner v. United States (1958) 358 U.S. 169 [79 S.Ct. 209, 3 L.Ed.2d 199], and Bell v. United States (1955) 349 U.S. 81 [75 S.Ct. 620, 99 L.Ed. 905]. The latter deal with the ‘‘policy of lenity ’ ’ approach used by the court when it is unable to determine which of two meanings (concerning punishment) was intended by Congress in enacting a federal criminal statute. (Compare our similar approach in such decisions as In re Tartar (1959) 52 Cal.2d *775250, 256 [9] - 257 [10] [339 P.2d 553], and eases there cited.) This is no more than a rule of construction, as is shown by the court’s comments in Ladner (at pp. 173 and 178 of 358 U.S.) that “There is no constitutional issue presented’’ and “If Congress desires to create multiple offenses from a single act affecting more than one federal officer, Congress can make that meaning clear.’’

 The same language is found in the predecessor to this section, enacted hy the first session of the California Legislature. (Stats. 1850, eh. 99, p, 235, amended Stats. 1858, eh. 245, p. 206.)

 In addition to the eases expressly disapproved by the majority (ante, p. 762) see also the following, which the majority appear to have overlooked : People v. Goodman (1958) 159 Cal.App.2d 54, 60 [4a] -62 [4b] [323 P.2d 536]; People v. Miller (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 305, 309 [11, 12] [276 P.2d 846]; People v. Taylor (1935) 4 Cal.App.2d 214, 218 [8] [40 P.2d 870] (dictum) ; People v. Marzec (1930) 108 Cal.App. 264, 266-267 [3] [291 P. 600]; People v. DeHoog (1929) 100 Cal.App. 235, 242 [3] [279 P. 1067]; People v. Shaffer (1927) 81 Cal.App. 752, 754-755 [1] [254 P. 666]. And in a number of eases separate punishments have been imposed in like circumstances without any discussion of Penal Code section 654: People v. Jefferson (1960) 182 Cal.App.2d 439 [6 Cal.Rptr. 147]; People v. Ford (1955) 133 Cal.App.2d 695 [284 P.2d 836]; People v. McGill (1927) 82 Cal.App. 98 [255 P. 261],

 One may well wonder how many other settled principles of law will now be overturned by the District Courts of Appeal on the theory that they "cannot be squared with” the asserted "reasoning” of the Neal dictum. For example, in a series of cases in which the defendant had entered a dwelling with intent to commit a sexual offense and thereafter had sexually attacked an occupant of that dwelling, separate punishments for both burglary and the subsequent sex crime have uniformly been upheld. (People v. Eaton (1959) 171 Cal.App.2d 120 [339 P.2d 951] [rape], People v. Bias (1959) 170 Cal.App.2d 502, 508 [4-7] [339 P.2d 204] [Pen. Code, § 288a] ; People v. Shields (1945) 70 Cal.App.2d 628, 636 [2] - 637 [4] [161 P.2d 475] [Pen. Code, 5 288]; People v. Novo (1936) 12 Cal.App.2d 525, 528 [2] [55 P.2d 915] [assault].) Will it now be said that the Neal dictum overruled, sub silentio, these authorities as well?

 The court disapproved its language in the Birdsall and Stoops decisions on the ground (id. at p. 922, fn. 2 [21 A.2d]) that “What was said in each of these two cases on this point was dictum and as it is contrary to reason and the great weight of authority, it need not be followed.” (Italics added.)

 For a parallel development in cases involving double jeopardy rather than double punishment, compare Triplett v. Commonwealth (1886) 84 Ky. 193 [1 S.W. 84, 8 Ky. L.R. 67] with Hunt v. Commonwealth [Ky. 1960] 338 S.W.2d 912, 914 [1-6], The latter is in accord with the overwhelming weight of authority in this connection. (See, e.g., People v. Devlin (1904) 143 Cal. 128, 129-130 [76 P. 900]; People v. Niemoth (1951) 409 Ill. Ill [98 N.E.2d 733, 736 [1, 3]]; People v. Parrow (1890) 80 Mich. 567 [45 N.W. 514, 515]; State v. Cowman (1947) [239 Iowa 56 [29 N.W .2d 238, 240 [3] - 241 [8]] ; Goodwin v. State (1946) 157 Fla. 751 [26 So.2d 898, 899 [2]]; Cambron v. State (1922) 191 Ind. 431 [133 N.E. 498, 499 [3], 19 A.L.R. 623]; cf. Grove v. Maxwell (1962) 173 Ohio St. 559 [184 N.E.2d 397, 398 [1]]; 19 A.L.R. 626-631; 31 L.R.A. N.S. 727-730.)

 Williams v. State (1954) 205 Md. 470 [109 A.2d 89, 92 [7, 8] - 94 [9]]; accord, Vandegrift v. State (1961) 226 Md. 38 [l71 A.2d 713, 714 [1]].

 State v. Byra (1942) 128 N.J.L. 429 [26 A.2d 702, 703-704 [1, 2]], affd. (1943) 129 N.J.L. 384 [30 A.2d 49], cert. den. 324 U.S. 884 [65 S.Ct. 1025, 89 L.Ed 1434],

 Wyatt v. Alvis (Ohio App. 1955) 136 N.E.2d 726, 727; cf. Breese v. State (1861) 12 Ohio St, 146, 152 [80 Am.Dec. 340],

 Copeland v. Manning (1959) 234 S.C. 510 [109 S.E.2d 361, 362 [1]].

 Robinson v. Commonwealth (1949) 190 Va. 134 [56 S.E.2d 367, 370 [3]] (dictum); cf. Speers v. Commonwealth (1867) 17 Gratt. (Va.) 570, 574.

 Ex parte Hill (1937) 101 Colo. 243 [72 P.2d 471, 472 [21-473 [5, 6]].

 New "York, of course, is such a state; but a special statute in that jurisdiction (Penal Law, <§ 406) expressly authorizes separate punishments for both burglary and any crime committed after entry.

 It is noteworthy that at the time of the Hogerson decision the Utah statute identical with our section 654 was also in force (then numbered Utah Code Ann. 1943, $ 103-1-22).