What is the test for applying section 654.4th of the California Street Terrorism Act when a defendant has been charged with a course of criminal conduct involving two drive-by shootings?

As People v. Latimer (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1203 pointed out, subsequent [d]ecisions... have limited th[is] rule's applicability in various ways. Some have narrowly interpreted the length of time the defendant had a specific objective, and thereby found similar but consecutive objectives permitting multiple punishment.

Page 17

[Citations.] [] Other cases have found separate, although sometimes simultaneous, objectives under the facts. [Citations.]" (Id. at pp. 1211-1212.)

In People v. Herrera (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1456, "the defendant was charged with a course of criminal conduct involving two gang-related, drive-by shootings in which two people were injured. [Citation.]" (People v. Vu (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1009, 1034.) The shootings were committed in retaliation against a rival gang who had shot at members of the defendant's gang. We held that "under section 186.22, subdivision (a) the defendant must necessarily have the intent and objective to actively participate in a criminal street gang. However, he does not need to have the intent to personally commit the particular felony (e.g., murder, robbery or assault) because the focus of the street terrorism statute is upon the defendant's objective to promote, further or assist the gang in its felonious conduct, irrespective of who actually commits the offense.... Hence, section 186.22, subdivision (a) requires a separate intent and objective from the underlying felony committed on behalf of the gang. The perpetrator of the underlying crime may thus possess 'two independent, even if simultaneous, objectives[,]' thereby precluding application of section 654. [Citation.]" (People v. Herrera, supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1467-1468, fn. omitted.)