How have courts interpreted section 654 of the Criminal Code when a defendant is convicted of conspiracy to murder and a substantive offense of murdering a minor?

property in substantive counts]; People v. Moringlane (1982) 127 Cal.App.3d 811, 819 [conspiracy to murder A and B; substantive offense of murdering C].)

The section 654 proscription against multiple punishments "cannot apply where . . . there are multiple objectives or transactions. [T]o give effect to this argument would allow persons who conspired to commit 10 different robberies to escape punishment for the conspiracy upon being [punished] for one of the robberies." (People v. Scott, supra, 224 Cal.App.2d at p. 152, italics added.) The rationale for the section 654 proscription against multiple punishments "is to prohibit double punishment where, to continue the analogy, the objective of the conspiracy was to commit only one robbery and there was a trial for that particular offense." (Ibid.)