P. v. Royal
Appellant Marlin L. Royal appeals from his conviction of aggravated kidnapping. He contends that the trial court erred in instructing the jury with CALJIC No. 9.54, rather than CALCRIM No. 1203. Respondent contends that appellant forfeited this issue by failing to object to CALJIC No. 9.54 or request CALCRIM No. 1203, and by expressly agreeing to all CALJIC instructions to the exclusion of CALCRIM instructions. We agree with respondent that appellants failure to object to CALJIC No. 9.54 and his agreeing to the instructions given resulted in a forfeiture of the issue.
Appellant also contends that Penal Code section 654 prohibited concurrent sentences on count 2 (robbery), and thus the sentence imposed as to count 2 must be stayed.[1] Appellant contends that section 654 also precluded both the enhancement imposed on count 1 (kidnapping for robbery) pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivision (b), and the punishment imposed for count 3 (possession of a firearm 12021, subd. (a)(1).) He argues that either the enhancement in count 1 or the sentence for count 3 must be stayed. Respondent agrees. We reject appellants contention that the enhancement in count 1 or the sentence for count 3 must be stayed. However, we agree that the sentence imposed as to count 2 must be stayed, and we amend the judgment accordingly, and affirm the judgment as amended.
Comments on P. v. Royal