People v. Palmore

In People v. Palmore (2000) 79 Cal. App. 4th 1290, the court rejected the same claim raised by defendant. There, the defendant was convicted of forcible rape during a commercial burglary, sodomy, and robbery. (Id. at pp. 1293, 1297.) In rejecting the defendant's claim, the court explained that "the section 667.61, subdivision (e)(2) circumstance, that the rape occurred during the burglary of a commercial building then closed to the public, goes to the nature and seriousness of the sex offense due to the victim's increased vulnerability. Section 654 does not apply because the section 667.61, subdivision (e)(2) circumstance, like an enhancement, does not define an offense but instead increases the punishment for the underlying substantive crime, here a sex offense. The forcible rape offense with its one strike sentencing allegation is not identical to the robbery count. The defendant's criminal intent and objectives were different in carrying out these crimes, and there was no double punishment under section 654." (Id. at pp. 1297-1298.)