What is the difference between uncharged crimes and charged crimes?

The combination of these same features in the various offenses is sufficient to support a finding of admissibility to inferentially establish the requisite intent. (Cole, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 1194; see also People v. Rodriguez (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 18, 34, fn. 8 [admission proper where both charged offense and uncharged crimes were committed at "approximately the same time of day," in "same general locale," with "same general sequence" of events, and "the taking of the same general type of item"].) Defendant seems to suggest that uncharged crimes evidence is never proper to establish the intent of an aider and abettor as opposed to a direct perpetrator because it would lead to an improper expansion of the use of uncharged crimes evidence. However, defendant offers no legal authority to support such position and we do not find the argument persuasive. We conclude the three uncharged crimes were properly ruled admissible under section 1101(b) on the issue of intent.