Does section 654 of the California Criminal Code allow a defendant to receive a concurrent sentence for one crime but not for two?

"Section 654 precludes multiple punishment for a single act or omission, or an indivisible course of conduct. [Citations.]" (People v. Deloza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 585, 591.) Imposition of concurrent sentences is incorrect if section 654 prohibits punishment for both crimes, even though there is no practical difference between the two approaches. (People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 350, 353.) Instead, the correct approach is to stay the sentence on the count for which punishment is precluded. (Ibid.) Accordingly, we inquire whether defendant's convictions in counts two, three, and four were the result of a single act or omission, or an indivisible course of conduct.

" '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. Latimer (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1203, 1208.)

Page 18

" 'It is defendant's intent and objective, not the temporal proximity of his offenses, which determine whether the transaction is indivisible. [Citations.] . . . [I]f all of the offenses were merely incidental to, or were the means of accomplishing or facilitating one objective, defendant may be found to have harbored a single intent and therefore may be punished only once. [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (People v. Hicks (1993) 6 Cal.4th 784, 789.) "On the other hand, if the evidence discloses that a defendant entertained multiple criminal objectives which were independent of and not merely incidental to each other, the trial court may impose punishment for independent violations committed in pursuit of each objective even though the violations shared common acts or were parts of an otherwise indivisible course of conduct. [Citations.]" (People v. Liu (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1135.)

"The defendant's intent and objective present factual questions for the trial court, and its findings will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence. [Citation.]" (People v. Andra (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 638, 640.)