on the porch, before any force was used; ergo, the conviction fails to establish the lawfulness of the force employed from that point on. This argument is foreclosed by Susag. In addition, under California’s continuous course of conduct rule, Smith’s conviction for resisting arrest necessarily includes all of the acts that comprise a continuous or indivisible transaction. People v. McFarland, 58 Cal.2d 748, 760, 26 Cal.Rptr. 473, 376 P.2d 449 (1962); People v. Simon, 21 Cal.App. 88, 90, 131 P. 102 (1913). The major considerations in determining whether similar acts are part of the same transaction are the amount of time elapsed between the discrete incidents, and whether there was any break in the criminal activity. See People v. Jefferson, 123 Cal.App.2d 219, 221, 266 P.2d 564 (1954) (<HOLDING>); People v. Mota, 115 Cal.App.3d 227, 233, 171
holding that separate sentences for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and with intent to rob were barred holding each act of shooting from a vehicle constituted a separate and distinct crime explaining where completed offense has occurred a separate charge may be brought for a repetition of the same conduct holding that two distinct acts of assault with a deadly weapon taking place within a fifteen minute period were a part of the same incident and they could not reasonably be held to constitute two separate offenses each complete in itself and each of which would require a separate charge holding unanimity requirement not violated when charge stated two separate counts with two separate and distinct offenses in each case holding that the evidence supported two separate convictions and punishments for two attempted robberies of two different victims who suffered separate and distinct harms