Appellant was convicted as an accomplice to attempted murder and second-degree robbery where she participated as the “bait” to entice a casino customer to leave the casino so her accomplices could rob him. The attempted murder charge was based on a shooting of the victim by the accomplices, which was not part of the original “plan.” On appeal, appellant challenged the consecutive sentencing on the convictions, arguing that it was a violation of Penal Code section 654 to impose consecutive sentences on an aider and abettor for two offenses arising out of a single criminal transaction where the aider and abettor only intended one of the offenses, and her liability for the second depended upon it being a natural and probable consequence of the first. The appellate court here reversed and remanded for resentencing. Without a finding that appellant at some point entertained as an independent objective the goal of attempted murder, section 654 denies the trial court discretion to impose consecutive sentences. Here, it is obvious that appellant had only a single objective – to rob the victim.