Majority
We issued an order to show cause on petitioner’s prima facie showing that the proscription against double punishment (Pen. Code, § 654) was violated by a burglary sentence imposed to run concurrently with sentences for robbery and kidnaping for robbery pronounced at the same time. The judgment imposing the three sentences was affirmed in People v. Ford, 133 Cal.App.2d 695 [ 284 P.2d 836 ].
The three offenses were part of one criminal transaction with the single objective of taking a safe from a restaurant. Petitioner was properly sentenced on both the kidnaping count and the robbery count because the People alleged and proved and the jury found that he kidnaped victims A, B, and C for the purpose of robbery (count I) as well as
The Attorney General concedes that the burglary sentence violated section 654. (In re Wright, 65 Cal.2d 650 [ 56 Cal.Rptr. 110 , 422 P.2d 998 ].) Records of the Department of Corrections filed in this proceeding by the Attorney General show that in 1963 petitioner was discharged from that sentence and the sentence for robbery. The Adult Authority is directed to exclude the burglary sentence from its consideration. (In re Heedly, 247 Cal.App.2d 854 , 856 [ 56 Cal.Rptr. 67 ].)
The order to show cause is discharged and the petition for habeas corpus is denied.
Cases cited
- People v. Ford 133 Cal.App.2d 695 p. 183
- People v. Ridley 63 Cal.2d 671 at 678 p. 184
- Neal v. State 55 Cal.2d 11 at 20 p. 184
- In re Wright 65 Cal.2d 650 p. 184
- In re Heedly 247 Cal.App.2d 854 at 856 p. 184