NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
This appeal arises from two separate offenses which were sentenced at the same time. In one case Michael Lee Rhudy pleaded guilty to felony resisting arrest (Pen. Code,
The court sentenced Rhudy to a six-year term for count 1 (vehicle theft) and a concurrent six-year term for count 2 (receiving stolen property). The court imposed four years for the prison priors. The court imposed a concurrent three-year term for the resisting arrest conviction.
Rhudy appeals challenging only the concurrent sentences for counts 1 and 2. He contends the trial court erred in its application of section 654 to those sentences. The Attorney General agrees the trial court was incorrect in the imposition of the two sentences. We agree with both parties. As we will discuss the court made a simple mistake. The court found section 654 applied to the two counts relating to the taking and possessing of the same vehicle. Unfortunately, the court deemed concurrent sentences complied with section 654. As the parties agree, once section 654 is applicable to the two offenses the sentence for one of them must be stayed, not merely imposed concurrently. We will order the sentence modified and the abstract of judgment amended accordingly.
At the time of sentencing the trial court said:
The court also found both crimes were committed in a single period of aberrant behavior and that they had objectives which were dependent on each other. When a court finds that section 654 prohibits multiple punishment for several counts, it must stay the sentence for all but the most serious offense. (People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1471.) Unfortunately, nobody brought the error to the trial court's attention, so it is our task to remedy the error.
We will modify the sentence by ordering the sentence for count 2 to be stayed pursuant to section 654.
The sentence imposed on count 2 is modified to reflect that it is stayed pursuant to section 654. The trial court is directed to amend the abstract of judgment to reflect this modification, and forward it to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed.
HALLER, J. and AARON, J., concurs.