P.

DISCUSSION

Appellant claims imposition of sentence on count 3 was erroneous because the crimes in count 1 and count 3 arose during a single, indivisible transaction. Section 654, subdivision (a) prohibits multiple punishment for the same act. The purpose of this section “is to prevent multiple punishment for a single act or omission, even though that act or omission violates more than one statute and thus constitutes more than one crime. Although the distinct crimes may be charged in separate counts and may result in multiple verdicts of guilt, the trial court may impose sentence for only one offense . . . .” (People v. Liu (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1135.) Multiple punishment is proper “if the defendant entertained multiple criminal objectives which were independent of each other.” (People v. Solis (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1002, 1021.) We find guidance in a series of cases addressing whether section 654 precludes punishment for illegal possession of a firearm by a felon, and a separate crime in which the firearm was used. “[W]here the evidence shows a possession distinctly antecedent and separate from the primary offense, punishment on both crimes has been approved. . . . On the…