Consecutive sentences were permissible where appellant had an opportunity to reflect and renew her intent between multiple crimes. Appellant used Brenda Baker’s identity to obtain a credit card, and then later used that credit card to obtain a rental vehicle and drive it. She was convicted in count 13 with vehicle theft and in count 17 for identity theft. Later she used the same identity to open bank accounts, and fraudulently withdrew money from the accounts. She was convicted in count 11 of obtaining money by false pretenses, and in count 12 with identity theft. Appellant contended on appeal that in sentencing her to consecutive terms on counts 13 and 17, and counts 11 and 12, the trial court violated the prohibition against multiple punishments under section 654. The appellate court rejected the arguments, finding that the trial court correctly refused to stay the sentences. Appellant committed the crimes weeks apart. She had an opportunity to reflect on her conduct and renew her intent to commit yet another crime. The offenses were not accomplished with a single intent and objective.