P.

DISCUSSION

Appellant contends the two charged offenses were committed on the same occasion and argues the trial court erred in finding that consecutive sentencing was mandatory under section 667. We vacated submission and requested additional briefing on the application of section 654 to the two charges brought against appellant. Because we conclude section 654 precludes sentencing for both charges, we need not address 2 appellant’s initial claim that consecutive sentencing was not mandatory. Section 654 states that any “act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law shall be punished under the provision that provides for the longest potential term of imprisonment, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision.” In determining whether section 654 applies, the ultimate question is whether the defendant’s course of conduct is divisible. (People v. Correa (2012) 54 Cal.4th 331, 335.) This necessarily involves a consideration of the intent and objective of the defendant; if all of the chargeable offenses were incident to a sole objective, then section 654 bars punishment for more than one of the offenses…