How have courts interpreted the phrase "not committed on the same occasion" in criminal legislation?

Although the court in Deloza did not address what "additional factors may be found relevant in defining the precise parameters of [the phrase 'same occasion'] in future cases" (People v. Deloza, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 596, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 255, 957 P.2d 945, fn. omitted), it discussed several points that are instructive. (Id. at pp. 596-599, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 255, 957 P.2d 945.) At the outset, it noted that "the phrase 'same occasion' in subdivision (a)(6) and (a)(7) [neither parallels] the language of section 654, which refers to an 'act or omission,' [n]or the language of cases interpreting section 654, which refer to an indivisible course of conduct and the defendant's intent and objective. [Citations.]" (People v. Deloza, supra, at p. 594, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 255, 957 P.2d 945.)

Also, in commenting on an alternative interpretation of the words "same occasion" posited by the Attorney General, which equated it with the meaning of the term "separate occasions" in section 667.6, subdivision (d), the court in Deloza noted "it is not clear how helpful the term 'separate occasions' ... is in interpreting the phrase 'not committed on the same occasion' " (People v. Deloza, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 597, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 255, 957 P.2d 945) because other statutes, including the Penal Code, have used such term inconsistently. (Id. at pp. 596-599, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 255, 957 P.2d 945.) While the court in Deloza cautioned that any definition of the "separate occasions" language under section 667.6, subdivision (d) would be "of only marginal assistance under these circumstances in construing the [68 Cal.App.4th 1404] meaning of the phrase 'not committed on the same occasion' " (People v. Deloza, supra, at p. 599, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 255, 957 P.2d 945), ⁹ it explained the use of such language in former section 186.22, subdivision (e), concerning the definition of a "pattern of criminal gang activity" which used the term "separate occasions" ¹⁰ (People v. Deloza, supra, at p. 598, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 255, 957 P.2d 945), "appeared to make a distinction between crimes occurring seconds apart and involving two assailants ... and crimes not in close temporal and spatial proximity to one another. [Citation.]" (Id. at p. 599, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 255, 957 P.2d 945.)