In People v. Chacon (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 52, the defendant kidnapped a Youth Authority librarian, choking and stabbing her, in an effort to obtain a truck in which to escape. ( Id. at p. 58.) The appellate court found that imposing sentence on the defendant for aggravated kidnapping, extortion, escape by force and violence, and assault with a deadly weapon constituted multiple punishment because the kidnapping, extortion, and escape were part of an indivisible transaction having the single objective of escape. "The Attorney General claims that these assaults were gratuitous and unnecessary acts of violence and not incidental to the kidnap. As to the librarian, we cannot agree. The acts of violence upon her, while atrocious, were committed to get the attention of Lieutenant Barrett so that he would supply the truck. The aggravated kidnap was ongoing." (Id. at p. 66.) Appellant again contends that a crime's status as ongoing is determinative in the matter. This is not the case. Whether or not the crime is ongoing is certainly a threshold issue: A crime must, of course, be in progress for an act to be incidental to it. But what rendered the assaults incidental in Chacon was not that they occurred during the kidnapping, but that they "were committed to get the attention of Lieutenant Barnett so that he would supply the truck." ( People v. Chacon, supra, 37 Cal.App.4th at p. 66.) The pertinent inquiry remains the reasons the acts are committed: "Whether a course of conduct is indivisible depends on the intent and objective of the actor." ( Id. at p. 65.)