How has section 654 of the California Street Terrorism Act been interpreted in the context of a drive-by shooting?

In People v. Herrera, supra, 70 Cal.App.4th 1456, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 307, "the defendant was charged with a course of criminal conduct involving two gang-related, drive-by shootings in which two people were injured. [Citation.]" ( People v. Vu, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 1034, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 765.) The shootings were committed in retaliation against a rival gang who had shot at members of the defendant's gang. We held that "under section 186.22, subdivision (a) the defendant must necessarily have the intent and objective*845 to actively participate in a criminal street gang. However, he does not need to have the intent to personally commit the particular felony (e.g., murder, robbery or assault) because the focus of the street terrorism statute is upon the defendant's objective to promote, further or assist the gang in its felonious conduct, irrespective of who actually commits the offense.... Hence, section 186.22, subdivision (a) requires a separate intent and objective from the underlying felony committed on behalf of the gang. The perpetrator of the underlying crime may thus possess 'two independent, even if simultaneous, objectives[,]' thereby precluding application of section 654. [Citation.]" ( People v. Herrera, supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1467-1468, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 307, fn. omitted.) Because the evidence showed the defendant had separate intents to murder multiple victims (see id. at p. 1467, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 307) [the defendant "repeatedly shot a gun on two separate occasionsthe interval between the two being brief but distinctstriking cars, occupied apartments, and bystanders"] and to support his "gang's felonious conduct," we held section 654 did not bar punishment for both crimes ( id. at p. 1468, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 307).