Because the attempted carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a)) and criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422) at issue in this case comprised an indivisible transaction in which appellant had a single intent and objective, the trial court’s imposition of concurrent sentences for these offenses violated Penal Code section 654, which prohibits multiple punishment for a single act or omission, or an indivisible course of conduct. The Court of Appeal, therefore, stayed the criminal threats sentence.
^