acts have “sufficient indicia of distinctness.” Id. These indicia “include the separation between the illegal acts by either time or physical distance, the quality and nature of the individual acts, and the objectives and results of each act.” Id. ¶ 16 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “Distinctness may also be established by the existence of an intervening event, the defendant’s intent as evinced by his or her conduct and utterances, the number of victims, and the behavior of the defendant between acts.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Furthermore, we will not find that a defendant’s conduct is unitary where the defendant completes one of the charged crimes before committing the other. See Bernal, 2006-NMSC-050, ¶ 11, 140 N.M. 644, 146 P.3d 289 (<HOLDING>). Finally, the' question of whether a
holding that the defendants sentence for robbery was not inappropriate holding that a robbery defendant was not entitled to a compulsion instruction in the absence of a claim that he or the victim was the target of a specific threat forcing the defendant to participate in the robbery holding that defendants conduct was not unitary where his attempted robbery of the victim began after he completed the murder of the victims boyfriend holding in attempted murder case that testimony regarding victims medical prognosis properly admitted holding defendants phone call to his exwife announcing his intent to kill the victim was not an unrelated act of misconduct and permissible to rebut defendants testimony that he did not threaten the murder victim