In determining whether Penal Code section 654 applies, absent any circumstances foreclosing sentencing discretion, the trial court may base its decision on any facts that are in evidence at trial, without regard to the verdicts. In addition to other offenses, appellant was found guilty of a burglary and violation of a restraining order. At trial, evidence was presented suggesting that there may have been two separate entries into the victim’s apartment. Sentences were imposed for each offense. Appellant asserted that the jury did not make a specific factual finding that the violation of the protective order occurred on an occasion separate from the burglary of which appellant was convicted. Therefore, appellant contended, the trial court could not make a finding independently that there were two arrivals and premise his punishment on an earlier arrival being independent of the other offenses. Affirmed. Section 654 precludes multiple punishment where an act or course of conduct violates more than one criminal statute but a defendant has only a single intent and objective. For purposes of section 654, under its sentencing authority, a court has discretion to consider the evidence presented at trial that involves the factual basis of each offense unless some circumstance forecloses its sentencing discretion. The court disagreed with People v. Roberson (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 860.