Does section 654 of the California Criminal Code apply where there was one act in the ordinary sense but nevertheless constituted an indivisible transaction?

Section 654 applies not only where there was one act in the ordinary sense, but also where there was a course of conduct that violated more than one statute but nevertheless constituted an indivisible transaction. (People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 551.) However, if the evidence discloses that a defendant entertained multiple

Page 4

criminal objectives, he may be punished for the independent violations committed in pursuit of each objective. (Ibid.) " 'It is defendant's intent and objective, not the temporal proximity of his offenses, which determine whether the transaction is indivisible.' " (People v. Hicks (1993) 6 Cal.4th 784, 789.)

Here, although the trial court made no explicit findings (as it was not asked to apply section 654), "implicit in the trial court's concurrent sentencing order is that defendant entertained separate intentions . . . ." (People v. Garcia (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1550, 1565.) Therefore, we assume the court implicitly found support for its failure to apply section 654, and we look to the record to support those findings.