Appellant was properly convicted of three counts of resisting arrest where he resisted arrest by three different officers. Appellant was convicted of three separate misdemeanor counts of resisting a peace officer arising from a single act. On appeal, he argued that he could be convicted of only one count, and, in the alternative, he had ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel did not move to dismiss two of the counts. The appellate court rejected the argument, finding that appellant could be convicted for each peace officer he resisted. Section 148, subdivision (e) expressly states a defendant can be convicted for each officer whose exercise of duty he resists. Appellant was properly sentenced for three violations of resisting arrest. Appellant also contended that the trial court violated section 654 when it imposed concurrent one-year jail terms for each violation of section 148. He argued that section 654 required the court to stay imposition of sentence on two counts because the three convictions were based on a single course of conduct, and the resistance was incident to one objective. The appellate court also rejected this argument, finding that appellant formed a new and independent intent with each officer he encountered. Appellant violated section 148 three times with an independent criminal objective for each violation; i.e. to avoid arrest by each particular officer.