multiple conviction rule in California

2024(Alarcon, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at p. 437 .) Apprendi does not require us to “treat penalty allegations as if they were actual elements of offenses for all purposes under state law.” (Porter v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 125, 137 [enhancements should not be considered in defining necessarily included offenses for double jeopardy protection, Apprendi notwithstanding]; People v. Izaguirre (2007) 42 Cal.4th 126, 128-129 [enhancement allegations may not be considered in defining necessarily included offenses for the multiple conviction rule, Apprendi notwithstanding]; Sloan, supra, 42 Cal.4

2021(People v. Alarcon, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th 432, 437 .) Apprendi does not require us to “treat penalty allegations as if they were actual elements of offenses for all purposes under state law.” (Porter v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 125, 137 [enhancements should not be considered in defining necessarily included offenses for double jeopardy protection, Apprendi notwithstanding]; People v. Izaguirre (2007) 42 Cal.4th 126, 128 [enhancement allegations may not be considered in defining necessarily included offenses for the multiple conviction rule, Apprendi notwithstanding]; People v. Sloan,

2024(Alarcon, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at p. 437 .) Apprendi does not require us to “treat penalty allegations as if they were actual elements of offenses for all purposes under state law.” (Porter v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 125, 137 [enhancements should not be considered in defining necessarily included offenses for double jeopardy protection, Apprendi notwithstanding]; People v. Izaguirre (2007) 42 Cal.4th 126, 128-129 [enhancement allegations may not be considered in defining necessarily included offenses for the multiple conviction rule, Apprendi notwithstanding]; Sloan, supra, 42 Cal.4

2021(People v. Alarcon, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th 432, 437 .) Apprendi does not require us to “treat penalty allegations as if they were actual elements of offenses for all purposes under state law.” (Porter v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 125, 137 [enhancements should not be considered in defining necessarily included offenses for double jeopardy protection, Apprendi notwithstanding]; People v. Izaguirre (2007) 42 Cal.4th 126, 128 [enhancement allegations may not be considered in defining necessarily included offenses for the multiple conviction rule, Apprendi notwithstanding]; People v. Sloan,

2024(Alarcon, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at p. 437 .) Apprendi does not require us to “treat penalty allegations as if they were actual elements of offenses for all purposes under state law.” (Porter v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 125, 137 [enhancements should not be considered in defining necessarily included offenses for double jeopardy protection, Apprendi notwithstanding]; People v. Izaguirre (2007) 42 Cal.4th 126, 128-129 [enhancement allegations may not be considered in defining necessarily included offenses for the multiple conviction rule, Apprendi notwithstanding]; Sloan, supra, 42 Cal.4

2021(People v. Alarcon, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th 432, 437 .) Apprendi does not require us to “treat penalty allegations as if they were actual elements of offenses for all purposes under state law.” (Porter v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 125, 137 [enhancements should not be considered in defining necessarily included offenses for double jeopardy protection, Apprendi notwithstanding]; People v. Izaguirre (2007) 42 Cal.4th 126, 128 [enhancement allegations may not be considered in defining necessarily included offenses for the multiple conviction rule, Apprendi notwithstanding]; People v. Sloan,

2009(Izaguirre, at p. 130; see Seel, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 539, fn. 2 .) We disagreed and found Apprendi’s holding inapposite to the question of whether enhancements must be considered in defining necessarily included offenses for purposes of the multiple conviction rule.

2007Last, defendant argues that under the high court's holding in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (Apprendi), and this court's decision in People v. Seel (2004) 34 Cal.4th 535 , 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 179 , 100 P.3d 870 (Seel), which interpreted and applied Apprendi in the context of the federal double jeopardy clause, enhancements must be considered in connection with the multiple conviction rule.

2024(Alarcon, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at p. 437 .) Apprendi does not require us to “treat penalty allegations as if they were actual elements of offenses for all purposes under state law.” (Porter v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 125, 137 [enhancements should not be considered in defining necessarily included offenses for double jeopardy protection, Apprendi notwithstanding]; People v. Izaguirre (2007) 42 Cal.4th 126, 128-129 [enhancement allegations may not be considered in defining necessarily included offenses for the multiple conviction rule, Apprendi notwithstanding]; Sloan, supra, 42 Cal.4

2016(People v. Wolcott (1983) 34 Cal.3d 92, 100-101 [ 192 Cal.Rptr. 748 , 665 P.2d 520 ] (Wolcott); People v. Izaguirre (2007) 42 Cal.4th 126, 128 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 148 , 164 P.3d 578 ] [enhancement allegations may not be considered in defining necessarily included offenses for the multiple conviction rule, Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 [ 147 L.Ed.2d 435 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 ] notwithstanding]; People v. Sloan (2007) 42 Cal.4th 110, 122-123 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 137 , 164 P.3d 568 ] (Sloan) [same].) In People v. Anderson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 92 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.3d 77 , 211 P.3d 584 ] {Anderson), our

2021(People v. Pearson (1986) 42 Cal.3d 351, 355 , overruled on other grounds by People v. Vidana (2016) 1 Cal.5th 632, 650 ; People v. Cole (1982) 31 Cal.3d 568, 582 ; People v. Moran (1970) 1 Cal.3d 755, 763 ; People v. Bauer (1969) 1 Cal.3d 368, 375 ; People v. Greer (1947) 30 Cal.2d 589, 604 , overruled on another ground by People v. Fields (1996) 13 Cal.4th 289, 308, fn. 6 .) In People v. Izaguirre (2007) 42 Cal.4th 126 (Izaguirre), the California Supreme Court held that sections 12022.5 and 12022.53 were not elements of a crime for purposes of the multiple conviction rule.

2013(See People v. Reed, supra, 38 Cal.4th at pp. 1229-1231 [accusatory pleading test appropriate to determine whether there has been notice of uncharged lesser included offense as alternative to charged greater offense]; People v. Moon, supra, 37 Cal.4th at pp. 25-26; People v. Birks (1998) 19 Cal.4th 108, 117 .) 11 3519; see also People v. Greer, supra, 30 Cal.2d at pp. 598-599.) Based on the Attorney General's concession that the battery count was a lesser included offense of the mayhem count for purposes of the multiple conviction bar, any instructional error in this regard is cured by our str

2009(See People v. Chiu (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1265 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 193 ].)” (Izaguirre, at p. 134.) Thus, reasoning that “enhancements are not legal elements of the offenses to which they attach,” we concluded they should not be considered in defining necessarily included offenses under the multiple conviction rule.

2009(See People v. Chiu (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1265 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 193 ].)” (Izaguirre, at p. 134.) Thus, reasoning that “enhancements are not legal elements of the offenses to which they attach,” we concluded they should not be considered in defining necessarily included offenses under the multiple conviction rule.

2024(Alarcon, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at p. 437 .) Apprendi does not require us to “treat penalty allegations as if they were actual elements of offenses for all purposes under state law.” (Porter v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 125, 137 [enhancements should not be considered in defining necessarily included offenses for double jeopardy protection, Apprendi notwithstanding]; People v. Izaguirre (2007) 42 Cal.4th 126, 128-129 [enhancement allegations may not be considered in defining necessarily included offenses for the multiple conviction rule, Apprendi notwithstanding]; Sloan, supra, 42 Cal.4

2021(People v. Alarcon, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th 432, 437 .) Apprendi does not require us to “treat penalty allegations as if they were actual elements of offenses for all purposes under state law.” (Porter v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 125, 137 [enhancements should not be considered in defining necessarily included offenses for double jeopardy protection, Apprendi notwithstanding]; People v. Izaguirre (2007) 42 Cal.4th 126, 128 [enhancement allegations may not be considered in defining necessarily included offenses for the multiple conviction rule, Apprendi notwithstanding]; People v. Sloan,

2020(People v. Izaguirre (2007) 42 Cal.4th 126, 128, 133 [enhancement allegations may not be considered in defining necessarily included offenses for the multiple conviction rule; Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 is inapposite]; People v. Sloan (2007) 42 Cal.4th 110, 114 ; see also People v. Alarcon (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 432, 436 [no duty to instruct on assault with a deadly weapon as lesser included offense of attempted murder].) Cooper acknowledges we are bound by this precedent and we see no reason to depart from it.

2016(People v. Wolcott (1983) 34 Cal.3d 92, 100-101 [ 192 Cal.Rptr. 748 , 665 P.2d 520 ] (Wolcott); People v. Izaguirre (2007) 42 Cal.4th 126, 128 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 148 , 164 P.3d 578 ] [enhancement allegations may not be considered in defining necessarily included offenses for the multiple conviction rule, Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 [ 147 L.Ed.2d 435 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 ] notwithstanding]; People v. Sloan (2007) 42 Cal.4th 110, 122-123 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 137 , 164 P.3d 568 ] (Sloan) [same].) In People v. Anderson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 92 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.3d 77 , 211 P.3d 584 ] {Anderson), our

2021(See People v. Gonzalez (2014) 60 Cal.4th 533, 539 [convictions for §§ 288a(f) and 288a(i) did not implicate the lesser included offense rule as “neither offense is included within the other”]; People v. Schueren (1973) 10 Cal.3d 553, 555-557, 561 [the defendant convicted of lesser included offense; cruel and unusual punishment to impose greater punishment than the maximum term for the greater offense]; People v. Liakos (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 721, 723, 725 [addressing § 654 claim].) We shall reverse the convictions in count one.

2015(People v. Gonzalez (2014) 60 Cal.4th 533, 536-537 ; § 954.) For purposes of the multiple conviction bar, an offense is necessarily included in another offense if all the elements of the lesser offense are included in the elements of the greater offense, so that the greater cannot be committed without also committing the lesser.

2021(People v. Pearson (1986) 42 Cal.3d 351, 355 , overruled on other grounds by People v. Vidana (2016) 1 Cal.5th 632, 650 ; People v. Cole (1982) 31 Cal.3d 568, 582 ; People v. Moran (1970) 1 Cal.3d 755, 763 ; People v. Bauer (1969) 1 Cal.3d 368, 375 ; People v. Greer (1947) 30 Cal.2d 589, 604 , overruled on another ground by People v. Fields (1996) 13 Cal.4th 289, 308, fn. 6 .) In People v. Izaguirre (2007) 42 Cal.4th 126 (Izaguirre), the California Supreme Court held that sections 12022.5 and 12022.53 were not elements of a crime for purposes of the multiple conviction rule.

2021(See People v. Gonzalez (2014) 60 Cal.4th 533, 539 [convictions for §§ 288a(f) and 288a(i) did not implicate the lesser included offense rule as “neither offense is included within the other”]; People v. Schueren (1973) 10 Cal.3d 553, 555-557, 561 [the defendant convicted of lesser included offense; cruel and unusual punishment to impose greater punishment than the maximum term for the greater offense]; People v. Liakos (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 721, 723, 725 [addressing § 654 claim].) We shall reverse the convictions in count one.

2021(See People v. Gonzalez (2014) 60 Cal.4th 533, 539 [convictions for §§ 288a(f) and 288a(i) did not implicate the lesser included offense rule as “neither offense is included within the other”]; People v. Schueren (1973) 10 Cal.3d 553, 555-557, 561 [the defendant convicted of lesser included offense; cruel and unusual punishment to impose greater punishment than the maximum term for the greater offense]; People v. Liakos (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 721, 723, 725 [addressing § 654 claim].) We shall reverse the convictions in count one.

2016(People v. Hernandez (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1040, 1048 [abuse of discretion standard of review].) The gang evidence was relevant to prove motive and intent.

2013The argument that the sentence violates the multiple conviction rule and constitutional protections against double jeopardy has been rejected by the California Supreme Court ( Sloan, supra, 42 Cal.4th 114, 120-121 ; Izaguirre, supra, 42 Cal.4th at pp. 128-129) and the United States Supreme Court (Hudson v. United States, supra, 522 U.S. at pp. 95-96 [ 139 L.Ed.2d at 459 ]; Missouri v. Hunter, supra, 459 U.S. at p. 368 [74 L.Ed.2d at pp. 543-544].) Under the doctrine of stare decisis, these cases are dispositive (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior 3 Court supra, 57 Cal.2d at p. 455 .) The abst

2013The clerk of the superior court is ordered to prepare and forward to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation an amended 3 Appellant contends Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. 466 [ 147 L.Ed.2d 435 ] and Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania, supra, 537 U.S. 101 [ 154 L.Ed.2d 588 ] compel a reassessment of Hudson v. United States, supra, 522 U.S. 93 [ 139 L.Ed.2d 450 ] and Missouri v. Hunter, supra, 459 U.S. 359 [ 74 L.Ed.2d 535 ].