Does a defendant who violates the inmate assault statute necessarily also violate the lesser assault statute?

every defendant who violates [the inmate assault statute] necessarily also violates the lesser offense described in [the assault statute]." (People v. Milward, supra, 52 Cal.4th 580, 588-589, italics omitted.) The court further explained, "[t]he law prohibits simultaneous convictions for both a greater offense and a lesser offense necessarily included within it, when based on the same conduct" and " '[w]hen the jury expressly finds defendant guilty of both the greater and lesser offense . . . the conviction of [the greater] offense is controlling, and the conviction of the lesser offense must be reversed.' " (Id. at p. 589.)

Here, like in Milward, defendant was convicted of both inmate assault and assault with a deadly weapon arising out of the same conduct. (People v. Milward, supra, 52 Cal.4th at pp. 582-583.) We conclude the inmate assault conviction ( 4500) is controlling and the lesser included assault conviction is prohibited. We, accordingly, reverse the assault conviction ( 245, subd. (a)(1)) and strike the accompanying court facilities and operations assessments. The trial court is instructed to amend the abstract of judgment.