In what circumstances will a defendant be convicted of making a terrorist threat against a witness?

In this case, there were multiple threats during the weekend, but not all the threats were made to facilitate the crime of false imprisonment by violence. Unlike the case of People v. Mendoza (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1333 (Mendoza), relied upon by appellant, there was not one single act that gave rise to two separate convictions. (Id. at p. 1346.) Defendant Mendoza went to the home of a witness against his brother and asked if she had read the newspaper. Mendoza told the witness she had "'fucked up'" his brother's testimony and that he intended to talk to some members of his and his brother's gang. (Id. at p. 1337.) Mendoza was convicted of making a terrorist threat in violation of section 422 and dissuading a witness by force or violence in violation of section 136.1, subdivision (c)(1). (Mendoza, supra, at p. 1337.) The appellate court found both offenses incidental to one objectiveto help Mendoza's brother by preventing further testimony from the witnessand stayed the concurrent sentence on the terrorist threat count. (Id. at p. 1346.)