What is the difference between assault and criminal threat charges?

Factually, the record indicates that all of the offenses occurred at the same location, and as part of the same confrontation. The assault and criminal threat charges against appellant were incident to a single objective and were part of an indivisible transaction. Case law establishes that even when two offenses were committed by separate acts, section 654 precludes separate punishment when the sole purpose for committing one offense was to facilitate commission of the other. (See, e.g., People v. Latimer (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1203, 1216 [objective behind kidnapping was to facilitate rape].)

The People present a structured, step-by-step analysis of the incident which breaks down appellant's actions in the bedroom into separate distinct acts. They argue that appellant had one objective to physically injure the victims and a separate objective to mentally terrorize them. But appellant did not have an opportunity to reflect between the assaults and the threats, and the trial court's finding that the threats created a new risk of harm and were independent of the assaults is not supported by the evidence. (People v. Felix (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 905, 915.)