Can a defendant be punished for multiple crimes committed during an indivisible course of conduct?

"Section 654 precludes multiple punishment for a single act or omission, or an indivisible course of conduct." (People v. Deloza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 585, 591.) It is the

Page 16

defendant's intent and objective that determines whether the course of conduct is indivisible. (People v. Hicks (1993) 6 Cal.4th 784, 789.) Thus, " '[i]f all of the offenses were merely incidental to, or were the means of accomplishing or facilitating one objective, defendant may be found to have harbored a single intent and therefore may be punished only once.' " (People v. Palmore (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1290, 1297.) But, "if the evidence discloses that a defendant entertained multiple criminal objectives which were independent of and not merely incidental to each other, he may be punished for the independent violations committed in pursuit of each objective even though the violations were parts of an otherwise indivisible course of conduct." (People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 551.)

A defendant's intent and objective are factual matters for the trial court to determine. (People v. Palmore, supra, 79 Cal.App.4th at p. 1297.) This court "must affirm if substantial evidence supports a trial court's express or implied determination that punishment for crimes occurring during a course of conduct does not involve dual use of facts prohibited by section 654." (Ibid.)