In a sexual assault case, does a judge err in imposing consecutive sentences for the rape and first count of sodomy against the victim?

We deferentially review the trial court's factual finding regarding whether the sex offenses were separately committed. As this court has previously observed, "Once a trial judge has found under section 667.6, subdivision (d), that a defendant committed offenses on separate occasions, we may reverse only if no reasonable trier of fact could have decided the defendant had a reasonable opportunity for reflection after completing an offense before resuming his [or her] assaultive behavior." (People v. Garza (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1081, 1092.) Under this deferential standard of review, we conclude the trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences for the rape and first count of sodomy against the victim.

Page 21