People v. Vasquez, 44 Cal.App.5th 732

Defendant Wilmar Vasquez and victim E.R. had a prior romantic relationship; she ended it after learning he had a wife and children.
On the day of the offenses Vasquez confronted E.R., shouted “I’m going to kill you,” produced a knife, chased and tackled her, then stabbed and twisted the blade into her chest.
E.R. fought back by putting her fingers in Vasquez’s eyes; in response Vasquez bit off part of her finger and cut her other hand; one fingertip was recovered at the scene.
Neighbors and E.R.’s son intervened, the knife was taken, and E.R. required surgery and suffered lasting injuries and pain.
Jury convicted Vasquez of attempted murder (count 1), mayhem for severing a finger (count 2), and criminal threats (count 3); enhancements for personal infliction of great bodily injury and personal use of a deadly weapon were found true.
Trial court imposed consecutive sentences on counts 1 and 2; on appeal Vasquez argued the mayhem sentence must be stayed under Penal Code § 654 because the acts were part of a single continuous course of conduct with a single intent to kill. The Court of Appeal affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 654 bars consecutive punishment for mayhem (biting/offending finger) and attempted murder (stabbing) because both were part of a single course of conduct with the same intent	Section 654 does not apply because the acts reflected separate intents/objectives; biting was not an act likely to accomplish killing and therefore was a separate objective meriting separate punishment	The mayhem was part of the same continuous course and same intent to kill as the attempted murder, so § 654 requires a stay of the mayhem sentence	Affirmed: substantial evidence supports separate intents — stabbing showed intent to kill; biting was retaliatory/independent conduct — § 654 does not bar consecutive punishment

Neal v. State of California, 55 Cal.2d 11 (Cal. 1960) (broad construction of § 654; divisibility depends on actor’s intent and objective)
People v. Beamon, 8 Cal.3d 625 (Cal. 1973) (multiple independent objectives allow multiple punishments even if acts share common conduct)
People v. Harrison, 48 Cal.3d 321 (Cal. 1989) (repeated, volitional sexual assaults interrupted by victim supported separate punishments)
People v. Jackson, 1 Cal.5th 269 (Cal. 2016) (temporal proximity alone insufficient to show offenses were incidental to a single objective)
People v. Britt, 32 Cal.4th 944 (Cal. 2004) (objectives can be consecutive or different and support separate punishments)