Does section 654 of the California Criminal Code prohibit multiple punishments for a single act, as well as an indivisible course of conduct?

Section 654 has been interpreted to prohibit multiple punishments for a single act, as well as an indivisible course of conduct. (Neal v. State of California (1960) 55 Cal.2d 11, 19.) "Whether a course of conduct is divisible and therefore gives rise to more than one act within the meaning of section 654 depends on the intent and objective of the actor. If all of the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of such offense but not for more than one." (Ibid.)

On the other hand, if the evidence discloses that a defendant entertained multiple criminal objectives independent of and not merely incidental to each other, the trial court may impose punishment for independent violations committed in pursuit of each objective, even though the violations shared common acts or were part of an otherwise indivisible course of conduct. (People v. Centers (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 84, 98; People v. Cleveland (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 263, 267-268.)

Whether a course of conduct is indivisible depends on a defendant's intent and objective, not temporal proximity of offenses. (People v. Hicks (1993) 6 Cal.4th 784, 788-789; People v. Jones (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1143.) "The determination of whether there was more than one objective is a factual determination, which will not be reversed on appeal unless unsupported by the evidence presented at trial. [Citation.] The

Page 17

factual finding that there was more than one objective must be supported by substantial evidence. [Citation.]" (People v. Saffle (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 434, 438.)