Does assault with a deadly weapon and carjacking charge merge for purposes of sentencing?

that the assault with a deadly weapon and carjacking charges merge for purposes of sentencing because the defendant "wielded the hammer to take the car . . . . Nor was use of the hammer motivated by animus unrelated to the taking of the automobile." (Id. at p. 630.) The two crimes were committed close in time, and the attack on the victim did not occur after the defendant " 'ha[d] consummated the purpose of his original crime.' " (Ibid., quoting People v. Williams (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 658, 663.)