In People v. Dugas (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 244, the jury convicted the defendant of burglary and robbery. (Id. at p. 246.) The evidence at trial supported the trial court's implied findings that, at a time when the victim was not in his residence, the defendant broke into and entered the residence with the intent to steal; that the burglary (consisting of the breaking and entering with the intent to commit a theft) had taken place by the time the victim returned home; and that the defendant formed the intent to commit a robbery (consisting of the taking of property by force against a person's will from the person's possession and immediate presence), as opposed to a theft (consisting of the taking and keeping of another person's property without that person's consent), only after the victim returned and entered his residence. (Id. at pp. 250-251.) Under such circumstances, because "the two crimes cannot be deemed part of an indivisible transaction incident to the same objective," the defendant's separate punishments for burglary and for robbery did not violate section 654. (Dugas, at p. 251.)