What is the difference between two counts of sexual assault against one victim and one count of assault against another?

Respondent concedes that the trial court based its analysis, in part, on a factual error, but argues that the court's analysis was nonetheless sound because appellant committed offenses against Breanna on different occasions, at different times, in different locations. Respondent's first two points are really one, as an offense committed on a different occasion is necessarily committed at a different time. Respondent's third pointdifferent locationsis both inconsequential and poorly supported by the record. One offense against Breanna took place in the garage and the other in a bedroom of the same house. In any event, respondent's attempts to maximize the difference between the two counts against Breanna is unavailing, as the trial court repeatedly stressed the significance of its belief that there were multiple victims, not multiple locations. The trial court's emphasis on this factor appears to echo the public policy reflected in legislation such as Penal Code section 667.61, that "[o]ffenders who strike against multiple victims are among the most dangerous" (People v. DeSimone (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 693, 698), and should be punished more severely than those who prey upon a single victim.

Given the fundamental factual error of the trial court and the court's great reliance upon its factual misconception, we conclude the trial court abused its discretion. (People v. Cluff (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 991, 998.) We do not hold that a denial of appellant's Romero motion will in all cases be an abuse of discretion, but simply that the trial court must base its decision upon an accurate version of the facts and must also consider the adequacy of a sentence under Penal Code sections 667.6, subdivision (d) and 667, subdivsion (a), rather than the Three Strikes law for appellant, which it failed to do on the prior remand. Following a thorough consideration of all pertinent factors and the true facts, the trial court is free to exercise its discretion in accordance with Romero and its progeny.