Does section 654 of the Criminal Code prohibit a defendant from serving two concurrent sentences for two separate robberies?

Section 654 precludes multiple punishment for "a single act or indivisible course of conduct." ( People v. Assad (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 187, 200, 116 Cal.Rptr.3d 699.) " The divisibility of a course of conduct

[278 Cal.Rptr.3d 928]

depends upon the intent and objective of the defendant.... [I]f 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. Akins (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 331, 338-339, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 338.) Whether a defendant harbored multiple criminal objectives is a question of fact, the trial court's determination of which must be upheld on appeal if supported by substantial evidence. ( People v. Nubla (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 719, 730, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 265.)

As previously stated, in Green, supra , 50 Cal.App.4th 1076, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 259, the court held section 654 did not preclude multiple punishment on the facts of that case. We also conclude that provision does not preclude multiple punishment here. Without unnecessarily repeating ourselves, we conclude the evidence is more than sufficient to support the trial court's implied finding that the two robberies were not part of an indivisible course of conduct. Moreover, even though defendant undoubtedly possessed the same intent, i.e., to permanently deprive F. of her property, when he took both her cell phone and her money, he had time between the robberies to reflect on his actions and renew his intent to steal. (See People v. Trotter (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 363, 367-368, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 648 [ 654 did not apply where the defendant had time to reflect between the shots he fired at a police officer and renewed his intent to harm the officer].)

The trial court did not violate section 654 by imposing concurrent sentences on defendant's robbery convictions.

[65 Cal.App.5th 13]