What is the test for determining that a robbery and arson did not arise from the same set of operative facts?

We next turn to whether the trial court erred by determining that the robbery and arson did not arise from the same set of operative facts. This requirement is satisfied if the crimes "shar[e] common acts or criminal conduct that serve[] to establish the element of the current felony offenses of which [the] defendant stands convicted." (People v. Lawrence, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 233.) In evaluating this issue, a trial court must consider "the extent to which common acts and elements of such offenses unfold together or overlap, and the extent to which the elements of one offense have been satisfied, rendering that offense completed in the eyes of the law before the commission of further criminal acts constituting additional and separately chargeable crimes . . . ." (Ibid.) Whether a defendant is in flight from an earlier offense when later offenses are committed is not dispositive. (See ibid.)

Page 19