The facts of this case are not in dispute but revolves if

The facts of this case are not in dispute but revolves if Tory J. Corpening can be punished more then once for a single physical act the violates multiple provisions of the penal code , The case revolves around Tory J. Corpening who approached Walter Schmidt with the intent to steal Walter Schmidt Van filled with a estimated $70,000 worth of coins. Tory J. Corpening approached Schmidt with a handgun shouting “Get out of the car or I’ll shoot” Schmidt agreed and stepped out of the car.

When Corpening entered the vehicle and Schmidt trys to usefully take the gun from Corpening’s hand, Schmidt attempts to apprehend the gun from Corpening’s hand a second and fails again. Corpening puts the van in reverse and drives away with Schmidt holding on and holds for 18 feet. Schmidt lets go and Corpening drives 50 yards down the street picking up an acomplance. The van is later found and with accomplices to the crime unloading the coins, Corpening escapes the police while they arrived but later turned himself into the authorities.

Corpening pleads guilty to carjacking, robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, receiving stolen property, and witness intimidation. The defendant was convicted of a robbery and a carjacking but according to the prosecution the accomplish of both crimes constitutes a single physical act subject to prohibitions on multiple punishments under section 654 and the action completed the actus reus of both crimes it is held that section 654 forbids punishment under both provisions. The conclusion to this case by the supreme court is that one cannot be punished more than one for a single physical act that violates multiple provision of the penal code.

Get quality help now
Sweet V
Verified

Proficient in: Common Law

4.9 (984)

“ Ok, let me say I’m extremely satisfy with the result while it was a last minute thing. I really enjoy the effort put in. ”

+84 relevant experts are online
Hire writer

When a physical act accomplishes the actus reus for more than one crime the act cannot give rise to multiple punishments.

The court chose to hear this case as there is a violation on how someone may be punished for two crimes that constitute the same act as it violates section 654. Tory J. Corpening was being punished for both robbery and carjacking which both stack his years of imprisonment since penal code 654 violates someone being charged for the same act must be punished by the provision that provides the longest potential term of imprisonment. This is a major violation to penal code 654 for Tory J. Corpening to be charged for the counts of two crimes that constitute, no one should be charged more then what they deserve. When a person is charged for a carjacking they cannot be charged for a robbery as well as vice versa if it is the same physical act. This does not mean a person cannot be charged for a robbery and carjacking instead the physical act must be separated from each other. If Tory J. Corpening carjacked the van and attempted to steal from Walter Schmidt after would be charged for both acts

Cite this page

The facts of this case are not in dispute but revolves if. (2019, Nov 15). Retrieved from http://paperap.com/the-facts-of-this-case-are-not-in-dispute-but-revolves-if-best-essay/

Let’s chat?  We're online 24/7