Distinguishing People v. Deloza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 585 and People v. Hendrix (1997)16 Cal.4th 508, the California Supreme Court held that trial court correctly concluded that consecutive sentences here were mandatory under Penal Code section 667, subdivision (c)(6). First, the offenses here were not committed on the same occasion as they involved separate locations and separate groups of victims with no connection. Appellant fled from a market from which he had taken a bottle of brandy. He was not pursued by store personnel. During his flight, he entered the back yard of a residence, where he chose to commit two aggravated assaults. Second, the offenses of trespass and aggravated assault did not arise from the petty theft, and therefore did not arise from the same set of operative facts. Justice Mosk concurred, disagreeing with the statutory interpretation principles utilized by the majority, which looked solely to dictionary definitions without placing them in context. Justice Kennard dissented on the basis of the “escape rule” because appellant had not yet reached a place of temporary safety when he committed the assault.