What is the difference between a false imprisonment conviction and an assault conviction?

the trial court's finding that defendant had separate intents and objectives in committing the false imprisonment and assault offenses. There was evidence demonstrating that defendant's intent and objective in the false imprisonment offense was to prevent D. from fleeing and disobeying him by instilling fear in her through his words and acts. There was also evidence demonstrating that the assault was not incident to this objective. The record shows that defendant ordered D. to get into his car and told her she must follow his directives. He then drove her around for about 15 to 20 minutes. When he finally parked in the warehouse yard, defendant demanded D. orally copulate him. According to D., the oral copulation lasted for approximately 15 minutes. While he was being orally copulated, and after he touched and sucked on D.'s breasts, defendant told her that he was going to have sexual intercourse with her. As the trial court noted, the assault was not necessary to accomplish the false imprisonment, so the false imprisonment was not merely incidental to the assault. Section 654 "cannot, and should not, be stretched to cover gratuitous violence or other criminal acts far beyond those reasonably necessary to accomplish the original offense." (People v. Nguyen (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 181, 191.) Here, defendant's act of having sexual intercourse with D. was an act far beyond what was necessary to accomplish the false imprisonment offense. Further, defendant had ample time to reflect on his conduct between the time he ordered D. to get into his car and the time he had sexual intercourse with her. Although defendant insists the purpose of the false imprisonment was to facilitate the subsequent act of sexual intercourse, the trial court could have reasonably concluded otherwise. In fact, the record is entirely susceptible to the interpretation defendant formed the intent and objective to have sexual intercourse with D. after he falsely imprisoned her. Accordingly, the trial court was justified in denying defendant's request to stay sentence on the assault conviction.