DISCUSSION

A. The Sentences for Assault with a Deadly Weapon and Criminal Threats Were Not Subject to Penal Code Section 654 Jung argues the trial court should have stayed his sentences for ADW and threats because they were part of an indivisible series of criminal acts culminating in Peggy’s kidnapping. (§ 654; see People v. Reed (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1224, 1227 [“the trial court must stay execution of sentence on the convictions for which multiple punishment is prohibited”].) We disagree. A defendant’s intent and objectives determine whether a series of criminal acts falls within section 654’s general bar on multiple punishments. (People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 335.) The evidence shows Jung’s assault and threats were not

3 committed in furtherance of Peggy’s kidnapping or to prevent her escape. The crime was complete when Jung dragged her into his apartment. (See, e.g., People v. Arias (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1428, 1435 [asportation requirement for kidnapping met where victim moved 15 feet into more secluded area of apartment where additional crimes would less likely be detected].) We find no reason to disturb the trial court’s decision to sentence Jung separately for the acts of torment occurring afterward. B. False Imprisonment Is a Lesser Included Offense of Kidnapping Jung asserts, and the People concede, false imprisonment is a lesser included offense of kidnapping. (People v. Ratcliffe (1981) 124 Cal. App.3d 808, 820, citing People v. Bauer (1969) 1 Cal.3d 368, 375. We reverse the conviction on count 3. C. The Abstract of Judgment Incorrectly Identifies Jung’s Weapons Enhancements The abstract of judgment mistakenly lists section 12022, subdivision (b)(2) instead of (b)(1) as the basis of the weapons enhancements found true as applied to his false imprisonment, corporal injury on a cohabitant, and threats convictions. The People again concede the point. We order the trial court to correct the abstract accordingly.

DISPOSITION

Jung’s conviction for false imprisonment (count 3) is reversed and vacated. The abstract of judgment is modified to reflect this change and to correct its errant references to section 12022, subdivision (b)(2). The enhancements on counts 4 and 8 should instead refer to subdivision (b)(1). The superior court clerk shall prepare an amended abstract and forward it to the

4 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The judgment is otherwise affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

PERREN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P.J.

TANGEMAN, J.

5 William N. Sterling, Judge Superior Court County of Los Angeles ______________________________

Jennifer A. Gambale, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Ryan M. Smith, Deputy Attorney General.

6