How have the courts interpreted section 654 of the Criminal Code when referring to prior convictions?

Second, to the extent defendant implies that he was improperly convicted in the first instance of multiple offenses arising from a single incident ( 654; People v. Cole (1982) 31 Cal.3d 568, 582, 183 Cal.Rptr. 350, 645 P.2d 1182), we need not reach the merits of his argument. There was no prejudice to him in the introduction of those convictions at the penalty phase here. Because the underlying facts of the convictions at issue were presented in the penalty phase, the jury was aware that the two convictions stemmed from a single incident. Nothing in the prosecutor's argument or elsewhere in the record suggests that the jury weighed the mere number of convictions, as distinguished from the facts of the underlying incidents, improperly or inordinately. Indeed, the prosecutor expressly stated in final argument that he was relying on two prior convictions, referring to the separate kidnap and rape incidents. He did not attempt to enumerate defendant's convictions. Any error in introduction of the convictions was harmless.