How have courts interpreted section 654 of the California Criminal Code when a defendant is convicted of a sex offence under both sections of the S. 654(1) and (2) of the Criminal Code?

for the longest potential term of imprisonment, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision." ( 654, subd. (a).) "'A trial court's implied finding that a defendant harbored a separate intent and objective for each offense will be upheld on appeal if it is supported by substantial evidence.' [Citation.]" (People v. Racy (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1327, 1336-1337.)

"'"Section 654 has been applied not only where there was but one 'act' in the ordinary sense... but also where a course of conduct violated more than one statute and the problem was whether it comprised a divisible transaction which could be punished under more than one statute within the meaning of section 654." [Citation.] [] Whether a course of criminal 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....'" (People v. Rodriguez (2009) 47 Cal.4th 501, 507, original italics.) "[I]f all of the offenses were merely incidental to, or were the means of accomplishing or facilitating one objective, defendant may be found to have harbored a single intent and therefore may be punished only once. [Citation.] [] If, on the other hand, defendant harbored 'multiple criminal objectives, ' which were independent of and not merely incidental to each other, he may be punished for each statutory violation committed in pursuit of each objective, 'even though the violations shared common acts or were parts of an otherwise indivisible course of conduct.'" (People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 335.)