Does a defendant who threatens to shoot his victim in the face demand a different result from the jury?

Contrary to defendant's contention, People v. Dixon (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1029 does not demand a different result. In that case, the defendant was found guilty of first degree murder, two counts of robbery, and assault with a deadly weapon. (Id. at p. 1033.) The court also found true the special allegation as to each robbery count and as to the assault count that the defendant had personally used a firearm in violation of section 12022.5. (Id. at p. 1033.) The court sentenced the defendant to the upper term of five years for the first robbery count, explaining the defendant had used his gun in such a way as to " 'create genuine terror in the heart and mind of [the victim]. He had the gun stuck in her face and continued threatening . . . to shoot her.' " (Id. at p. 1037.) Further, the trial court imposed a consecutive sentence for the second robbery count, since " 'the defendant obviously used a firearm.' " (Ibid.) On appeal, the court found the threat to kill the victim was properly used as a basis for the aggravated enhancement of the first robbery count. (Id. at p. 1038.) However, the court reversed the consecutive sentence for the second robbery count since the only factor relied upon to impose the consecutive sentence was the gun use, which had already been used as a basis for another enhancement. (Id. at pp. 1038-1039.) In the instant action, the court aggravated defendant's sentence based on the manner in which he used the gun, not merely because the gun was used in the commission of the crime.