Appellant was properly sentenced under the Three Strikes law to two consecutive life-term sentences for one count of attempted first degree murder and one count of assault with a deadly weapon where the offenses were not committed on the same occasion and based on the same set of operative facts. Appellant contended that under People v. Lawrence (2000) 24 Cal.4th 219, the trial court did not have to sentence him to mandatory consecutive sentences. However, appellant assaulted one victim at the top of the stairs while he was trying to enter a bedroom where the second victim, another family member, was located. He then assaulted the second victim. The offenses were sufficiently separated both in time and location, and the elements of the offenses were different. Further, there was enough time between the incidents for appellant to have reflected on his acts. Therefore, the trial court acted properly when it sentenced appellant to consecutive sentences on those two counts. J. Grignon dissented, holding that the assault on the second victim took place during the continuing assault on the first victim. Therefore, the offenses were committed in close spatial and temporal proximity against the same family of victims, overlapped, and were uninterrupted. Therefore, remand was required in order to allow the trial court to exercise its discretion whether to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences.