Skip to content
Name: Double Jeopardy

The Court of Appeal agreed with the parties that because the record reflects that the intent and objective of appellant’s assault and burglary offenses were the same, the trial court erred in not staying one of the sentences pursuant to Penal Code section 654. Additionally, the court erred in increasing the restitution and parole revocation fines during appellant’s resentencing hearing, and it miscalculated the appropriate court operations assessment and criminal conviction assessment. The Court of Appeal vacated appellant’s sentence and remanded for the trial court to conduct a full resentencing hearing to exercise its discretion under section 654, impose restitution and parole revocation fines that do not exceed the originally imposed amounts, and correct the assessments.