Does the fact that both a burglary and robbery were committed with the ultimate goal of taking the victim's property constitute dispositive?

The fact that both the burglary and robbery were committed with the ultimate goal of taking the victim's property is not dispositive. " 'Under section 654, "a course of conduct divisible in time, although directed to one objective, may give rise to multiple violations and punishment. [Citations.]" [Citations.] This is particularly so where the offenses are temporally separated in such a way as to afford the defendant opportunity to reflect and to renew his or her intent before committing the next one, thereby aggravating the violation of public security or policy already undertaken. [Citation.]' " (People v. Andra, supra, 156 Cal.App.4th at p. 640.) As the trial court correctly noted, by the time defendants encountered the victim, they had already entered the victim's home and all the elements of a burglary had already been completed. Upon encountering the victim within the home, defendants could have fled, but instead chose to attack and restrain the victim. Based upon these facts, the trial court could reasonably conclude that defendants had an opportunity to reflect on their conduct and renew their intent at the time they decided to threaten and restrain the victim. So long as substantial evidence in the record supports the trial court's finding of a separate intent, it is not our role to replace our judgment for that of the trier of fact.