How have courts interpreted section 654 of the California Penal Code for the purposes of robbery and attempted murder?

Defendant relies on the principle that a robbery is not complete until the robbers have reached a place of relative safety. (See People v. Burney (2009) 47 Cal.4th 203, 246, fn. 13.) He reasons that until they reached safety, all of their threats were incidental to the robbery. But, that rule--extending the length of a robbery beyond the point of asportation--applies when considering whether the felony-murder rule applies, not when section 654 applies. In a case where robbers took money from a store clerk and managed to open the register till, then one robber shot a non-resisting employee, the appellate court held separate sentences for robbery and attempted murder were appropriate, because "Once robbers have neutralized any potential resistance by the victims, an assault or attempt to murder to facilitate a safe escape, evade prosecution, or for no reason at all, may be found by the trier of fact to have been done for an independent reason." (People v. Nguyen (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 181, 191.) That court examined the already-tortuous history of section 654, and concluded: "Bluntly stated, Penal Code section 654 has not been applied consistently. We believe it is reasonably clear, however, that a separate act of violence against an unresisting victim or witness, whether gratuitous or to facilitate escape or to avoid prosecution, may be found not incidental to robbery for purposes of section 654. If the trier of fact determines the crimes have different intents and motives, multiple punishments are appropriate. This is so notwithstanding that for purposes of the felony-murder rule the robbery is still considered to be ongoing. Intent and motive are not at issue in that situation, beyond proof of an intent to rob; and legal

Page 9