People v. Fewell CA3

Filed 6/23/22 P. v. Fewell CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C093957

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 20FE018794)

v.

CAMERON FEWELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Cameron Fewell guilty of attempted carjacking (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 215, subd. (a)—count one)1 and attempted kidnapping (§§ 664, 207, subd. (a)—count two). The trial court sentenced defendant to 10 months in prison on count one (consecutive to a five-year term in another case), and a concurrent term of two years six months on count two.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

Defendant contends on appeal that, under section 654, the trial court erred in imposing a concurrent sentence for attempted kidnapping because both crimes arose out of a single course of action. We agree and will direct the trial court to modify defendant’s sentence by staying execution of the sentence imposed on count two. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On the morning of November 23, 2020, Sylvia S. parked her car near her mother’s house before going to work at the Sheraton Grand Hotel approximately five blocks away. When Sylvia turned off the engine, the doors automatically unlocked. Defendant opened the passenger side door and got in the car. He took out a pistol and pointed it at Sylvia. Defendant said, “You need to drive right now.” Sylvia told defendant she would not drive him anywhere. She got out of the car and ran to her mother’s house. When her mother let her in, Sylvia’s brother-in-law called 911. Defendant followed her to the door but left after two or three minutes. Police officers responding to the call arrested defendant. Defendant testified that on November 23, 2020, he was walking to the Sacramento Natural Foods Co-op where he worked as a security guard. He had locked himself out of his apartment and could not drive to work, charge his phone to request a Lyft or Uber, or contact his boss to say he would be late to work. Sylvia pulled up and defendant talked to her about needing to charge his phone. She nodded and defendant took this as a cue that it was all right for him to get in her car so he could charge his phone. Defendant had an air pistol in a holster that was poking him in the hip bone. He pulled the pistol out to place it on the floor. As he did so, Sylvia left the vehicle. DISCUSSION Defendant correctly contends that the concurrent sentence on count two violates section 654 and should be stayed. “Section 654 prohibits multiple punishment for multiple crimes which arise out of a single act or an indivisible course of conduct. [Citation.]” (People v. Cole (1985) 165