A trial court erred in imposing multiple enhancements for discharging a firearm where there was only one shot fired at a single victim. After concluding that substantial evidence supported the defendant’s convictions for attempted murder, kidnapping for robbery, and kidnapping for carjacking, as well as the finding that he had discharged a firearm in the commission of those crimes, the court held that section 654 did not preclude multiple punishment for kidnapping the same victim for robbery and for carjacking, since the evidence showed separate objectives for those two crimes. However, separate punishment for the same acts in regard to a second victim was improper, because there was but a single act and a single criminal objective underlying both aggravated kidnappings as to that victim. And where only one victim was involved in the discharge of the firearm, only one enhancement could be imposed under Penal Code section 12022.53, as opposed to one enhancement per felony charge. The court further held that Blakely v. Washington (2004) 124 S.Ct. 2531 does not apply to consecutive sentencing under California law, but that remand for resentencing was required because the trial court had not selected a base determinate term but had instead ordered that all determinate counts be subordinate to the indeterminate term.