How has the court interpreted section 654 of the California Criminal Code, Section 654, subdivision (a) of the Criminal Code?

To us, it reads as if the court is attempting to distinguish a vacant hotel room, where any burglary would necessarily be second degree. Thus, the court is instructing the jury that if someone uses "part of the building" "as a dwelling" then an occupied hotel room may qualify. Defendant's interpretation ignores this earlier part of the sentence, and we disagree with his argument that the instruction necessarily equates occupancy with habitation. As given, it was a correct statement of the law and did not, as defendant contends, lower the burden of proof. Accordingly, we find no "'reasonable likelihood' that the jury misconstrued or misapplied the law in light of the instructions." (People v. Dieguez (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 266, 276.)

Section 654, subdivision (a), states "[a]n act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law shall be punished under the provision that provides for the longest potential term of imprisonment, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision." Generally under section 654, a defendant may only be sentenced once for crimes completed by a single physical act or in pursuit of a single criminal objective. (People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 311.)

"[I]f the evidence discloses that a defendant entertained multiple criminal objectives which were 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 parts of an otherwise indivisible course of conduct. [Citations.] The principal inquiry in each case is whether the defendant's criminal intent and objective were single or multiple. Each case must be determined on its own facts. [Citations.] The question whether the defendant entertained multiple criminal objectives is one of fact for the trial court, and its findings on this question will be upheld on appeal if there is any substantial evidence to support them." (People v. Liu (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1135-1136.)

Page 13