What is the difference between evading and assaulting a police officer and shooting at officers?

pursuing officers].) The evading and assaults also required different physical actions to complete (driving vs pointing a gun out the window and firing). (Cf. People v. Jackson, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 354 [defendant harbored two different intents and objectives when he committed a burglary and murder against a single victim because the two crimes were "necessarily accomplished through separate actions: removing the cash from the envelope on one hand and doing violence to [the victim] on the other."].) The evidence also supports the court's implied finding Truong sought to initially evade apprehension but later intended to provoke the officers into killing him by firing his weapon at them. There was no sentencing error.

We also reject Truong's claim the trial court should have imposed a concurrent term on count 6. "Section 669 grants the trial court broad discretion to impose consecutive sentences when a person is convicted of two or more crimes." (People v. Shaw (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 453, 458, citations omitted.) A single factor in aggravation is sufficient to justify a sentencing choice. (People v. Quintanilla (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 406, 413.) The trial court found several aggravating factors, including that Truong had committed "a series of crimes of violence," and that he placed a "lot of people, including yourself, at great risk" of being killed. The trial court acted within its sentencing discretion.

E. Dueas Error