64 Cal. 2d 672 - In re Ward’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

158 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 161 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Whether a course of criminal conduct is divisible and therefore gives rise to more than one act within the meaning of section 654 depends on the intent and objective of the actor. If all of the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 5 Cal. App. 3d 617 - People v. Beasley · 2 Cal. App. 3d 989 - People v. Cline

2. “(1) Section 654 of the Penal Code prohibits the imposition of double punishment if either a single act or a course of criminal conduct engaged in with a single objective is charged as the basis of multiple convictions. Under such circumstances, the defendant can be punished only for the more serious offense. (In re Ward, 64 Cal.2d 672, 675-676 [3] [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 272 , 414 P.2d 400 ].) (2) Whether a course of criminal conduct is divisible and consequently gives rise to more than one act within the meaning of section 654 of the Penal Code is determined by the intent and objective of the actor. (In re Ward, supra, 64 Cal.2d 672, 676 [4].) (3) Although section 654 of the Penal Code prohibits double punishment, it does not prohibit double conviction. If double punishment has been erroneously imposed, the appropriate procedure on appeal is to eliminate the effect of the judgment as to the lesser offense insofar as the penalty alone is concerned. (In re Ward, supra, 64 Cal.2d 672, 676 [6].) (4) Where a defendant has been convicted of more than one offense based on one act or indivisible transaction, he is subjected to the proscribed double punishment if he is sentenced for each offense, even though the sentences are made to run concurrently. (In re Wright, 65 Cal.2d 650 [ 56 Cal.Rptr. 110 , 422 P.2d 998 ].)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 5 Cal. App. 3d 617 - People v. Beasley · 66 Cal. 2d 154 - In Re Pratt

3. “"An act or omission which is made punishable in different ways by different provisions of this code may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no case can it be punished under more than one; . .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 65 Cal. 2d 41 - People v. Ford · 70 Cal. 2d 604 - In Re Hayes