Does a finding that defendant harbored criminal intent separate and distinct from that of receiving stolen property constitute a separate criminal intent?

Further, in this case, there has already been a specific judicial finding that defendant's intent and objective in committing the burglary was intent to commit larceny. By staying defendant's sentence on count 2, receiving stolen property, pursuant to section 654, the trial court implicitly made the factual finding that defendant harbored the same intent and objective for both offenses. (See People v. Coleman (1989) 48 Cal.3d 112, 162 [" 'The defendant's intent and objective are factual questions for the trial court; [to permit multiple punishments,] there must be evidence to support a finding the defendant formed a separate intent and objective for each offense for which he was sentenced.' "].) The idea that defendant harbored a criminal intent separate and distinct from the intent to commit receiving stolen property, a form of larceny, is not compatible with the trial court's finding, which the People did not appeal.