Filed 3/22/18 P. v. Taylor CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO



THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MATTHEW SCOTT TAYLOR,

Defendant and Appellant.


E068375

(Super.Ct.No. RIF1604370)

O P I N I O N


APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Samuel Diaz, Jr., Judge. Affirmed with directions.
Sylvia W. Beckham, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, and Charles C. Ragland and Scott C. Taylor, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant and appellant, Matthew Scott Taylor, pled guilty to attempted murder (count 1; Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, subd. (a)) and discharging a firearm at an occupied vehicle (count 2; § 246). Defendant additionally admitted allegations that he personally discharged a firearm inflicting great bodily injury upon the victim in his commission of the count 1 offense (§ 12022.7, subd. (b)), personally inflicted great bodily injury in his commission of the count 1 offense (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)), and personally used a firearm (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)) in his commission of the count 2 offense. In accordance with the plea agreement, the court sentenced defendant to 20 years of imprisonment.
On appeal, defendant contends the court erred in imposing a concurrent term on count 2 in contravention of the proscriptions of section 654. The People concede the error. The judgment is modified to stay imposition of sentence on count 2. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On August 30, 2016, during his repossession of defendant’s vehicle, the victim sustained a bullet wound to his right side resulting in internal injuries. A witness identified defendant as the shooter. At the scene, an officer recovered a nine-millimeter, semiautomatic handgun registered to defendant. Nine expended nine-millimeter shell casings and one intact bullet cartridge, consistent with defendant’s handgun, were also recovered from the scene. Another officer found an additional handgun inside defendant’s vehicle. Defendant’s vehicle sustained damage consistent with bullet strikes. Police apprehended defendant at the scene; defendant acknowledged that the gun used in the shooting belonged to him.
On September 2, 2016, the People charged defendant by felony complaint with attempted murder (count 1; §§ 664, 187, subd. (a)) and discharging a firearm at an occupied vehicle (count 2; § 246). The People additionally charged defendant with allegations that he personally discharged a firearm inflicting great bodily injury upon the victim in defendant’s commission of the count 1 offense (§ 12022.7, subd. (b)), personally inflicted great bodily injury in his commission of the count 1 offense (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)), and personally used a firearm (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)) in his commission of the count 2 offense. After the preliminary hearing, the parties stipulated to the designation of the complaint as the information.
Defendant pled guilty as recounted above. As the factual basis for the plea with respect to the count 1 offense, defendant admitted he “wilfully and unlawfully discharged a firearm at [his] truck, knowing somebody was driving it, with the intent to kill that person[.]” As the factual basis for the count 2 offense, defendant admitted that he “unlawfully and maliciously discharged a firearm at [his] vehicle knowing that vehicle was occupied.”
At sentencing, the court imposed an aggregate term of 20 years’ imprisonment consisting of the following: the midterm of seven years on the count 1 offense; a consecutive 10 years for the section 12022.53, subdivision (b) enhancement; a consecutive three years on the section 12022.7, subdivision (a) enhancement; and a concurrent, upper term of seven years on the count 2 offense.
II. DISCUSSION
Defendant contends the court erred in imposing a concurrent term on count 2 in contravention of the proscriptions of section 654. The People concede the error. We agree.
“Whether a defendant may be subjected to multiple punishment under section 654 requires a two-step inquiry, because the statutory reference to an ‘act or omission’ may include not only a discrete physical act but also a course of conduct encompassing several acts pursued with a single objective. [Citations.] We first consider if the different crimes were completed by a ‘single physical act.’ [Citation.] If so, the defendant may not be punished more than once for that act. Only if we conclude that the case involves more than a single act—i.e., a course of conduct—do we then consider whether that course of conduct reflects a single ‘“intent and objective”’ or multiple intents and objectives. [Citations.] At step one, courts examine the facts of the case to determine whether multiple convictions are based upon a single physical act. [Citation.] When those facts are undisputed—as they are here—the application of section 654 raises a question of law we review de novo. [Citations.]” (People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 311-312.) “In the absence of any distinct actions that could be associated with the actus reus for each . . . crime[],” the imposition of concurrent sentences for those offenses is improper. (Id. at p. 312.)
Here, as the parties agree, the factual bases for both offenses for which defendant pled guilty consisted of a single physical act: shooting at his vehicle as the victim drove away. Therefore, pursuant to the proscriptions of section 654, imposition of punishment on the count 2 offense was required to be stayed. The court’s imposition of a concurrent term on the count 2 offense was error.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is hereby modified to reflect that the concurrent term imposed for the count 2 offense is stayed pursuant to section 654. The trial court is ordered to file an amended abstract of judgment and minute order reflecting this modification and forward a certified copy of the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The modified judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

McKINSTER
J.


We concur:

RAMIREZ
P. J.

FIELDS
J.