People v. Quair CA3

Filed 5/13/14 P. v. Quair CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C070498

v. (Super. Ct. No. CM034611)

RICHARD SAMMY QUAIR,

Defendant and Appellant.

After the charges against him were reduced to misdemeanors, defendant Richard Sammy Quair pleaded no contest to willful infliction of corporal injury on a spouse, attempting to dissuade a witness, false imprisonment, and making criminal threats. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for four years. Two months later, however, defendant violated the terms of his probation. The trial court revoked probation and sentenced defendant to four consecutive one-year terms in county jail.

1

Defendant now contends the sentences for two of the four counts must be stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654, which prohibits double punishment for violations based on the same act or omission.1 As we will explain, to permit multiple punishments, there must be substantial evidence to support a finding that defendant had a separate objective for each offense. But in this case there was no specification of the stipulated factual basis for the plea, no probation report, and no preliminary hearing, trial or other evidentiary hearing. On this limited record we cannot discern upon what the trial court relied to determine that section 654 did not apply, and hence we cannot conclude that substantial evidence supports the trial court’s section 654 sentencing choices. Similarly, although defendant asks us to stay the sentence on two counts, we cannot determine on this limited record whether any of the counts are based on the same act or an indivisible course of conduct. Accordingly, we will reverse the sentences, remand for resentencing, and affirm the judgment in all other respects. BACKGROUND As defendant points out, the record on appeal contains no evidentiary facts regarding the underlying offenses other than the allegations in the complaint. The People charged defendant with four felony counts based on acts committed against his wife on or about May 21, 2011: willful infliction of corporal injury on a spouse, resulting in a traumatic condition (§ 273.5, subd. (a) -- count 1), attempting to prevent or dissuade a victim or witness from causing or seeking the arrest of any person in connection with that victimization (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(3) -- count 2), false imprisonment (§ 236 -- count 3), and criminal threats (§ 422 -- count 4). The People also alleged that defendant was eligible for enhanced punishment because he served four prior prison terms, and that he did not