How have courts dealt with forgery and burglary cases?

People v. Curtin (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 528 (Curtin) supports defendant's position. In that case, the defendant entered a bank, presented a forged check and false identification, and cashed the check. (Id. at p. 530.) The defendant was convicted of forgery, grand theft, and burglary "all arising out of a single incident in which he cashed a check at a bank by misrepresenting himself as one of the bank's depositors and using a forged signature." (Ibid.) The defendant was sentenced to two years for burglary, a two-year concurrent term for forgery, and two years for theft. The trial court stayed only the theft sentence under section 654. (Curtin, at p. 530.) On appeal, the defendant argued that the forgery sentence should also be stayed, leaving punishment only for the burglary. The appellate court found it was appropriate to stay the defendant's conviction for forgery under section 654, because in that case the forgery and burglary were "part of the same indivisible transaction" and were "committed for a single criminal objective, to cash the check." (Curtin, at p. 532.)