In Re Cruz

BURKE, J.

— Petitioner and a codefendant, Roland Causey, were charged with conspiracy to commit grand theft (count 1) and grand theft (counts 2 through 4). Petitioner alone was charged with an additional count of grand theft (count 5). The jury found both of them guilty on counts 1 and 2 and petitioner guilty on counts 3 through 5; and the jury acquitted Causey on counts 3 and 4. Petitioner was sentenced to a term of imprisonment on each count, and it was ordered that the sentences as to counts 1 and 2 run consecutively and that the sentences as to counts 3, 4, and 5 run concurrently with count 2. The judgment was affirmed.

(People

v.

Causey,

220 Cal.App.2d 641 [34 Cal.Rptr. 43].)

Petitioner now seeks habeas corpus, contending that the sentences imposed violated the proscription in Penal Code section 654 against multiple punishment because the conspiracy had no objective apart from the grand thefts for which he was sentenced to prison.

1

The Attorney General concedes that this contention has merit. Where the facts are undisputed and the only question as to the issue of multiple punishment is the applicability of section 654, habeas corpus is a proper remedy to review that issue.

(Neal

v.

State of California,

55 Cal.2d 11, 17 [9 Cal.Rptr. 607, 357 P.2d 839];

Downs

v.

State of California,

202 Cal.App.2d 609, 611 et seq. [20 Cal.Rptr. 922].) In

Neal

and

Downs

the court granted relief even though, as in the instant case, the issue of multiple punishment apparently had not been raised on appeal from the judgment of conviction.

The facts are set forth in the opinion on petitioner’s appeal

(People