What is the test for sentencing a defendant to two separate sentences for grand theft auto and dissuading a witness?

Appellant argues the trial court violated section 654, which prohibits punishment for two offenses arising from the same act or from a series of acts constituting an indivisible course of conduct (People v. Latimer (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1203, 1216; People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 335), when it imposed separate sentences for both grand theft auto and dissuading a witness.³ According to appellant, both counts were motivated by a single objective, to flee from the scene of the crime without apprehension, and both occurred during a course of conduct indivisible in time. We disagree.

"The test for determining whether section 654 prohibits multiple punishment has long been established: '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. If all of the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one.' [Citation.]" (People v. Britt (2004) 32 Cal.4th 944, 951-952.)