California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Brunton, 23 Cal.App.5th 1097, 233 Cal.Rptr.3d 686 (Cal. App. 2018):
We thus conclude that, when based on a defendant's single act of using a noninherently dangerous object in a manner likely to produce great bodily injury, section 245, subdivisions (a)(1) and (a)(4) are merely different statements of the same offense such that the defendant may not be convicted of violating both subdivisions.10 And because in this circumstance a defendant's use of a deadly weapon (that is, a noninherently dangerous object used in a manner likely to produce death or great bodily injury) is an element of the single offense, no deadly weapon-use enhancement can properly attach to the underlying offense. (See 12022, subd. (b)(1) [enhancement does not apply when "use of a deadly or dangerous weapon is an element of [the] offense"]; People v. McGee (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 107, 115, 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 12 ( McGee ) [where the force-likely assault was the "defendant's stabbing of the victim with a knife," the defendant's "use of this deadly weapon was an element of the offense ... even though the crime was pleaded as [a force-likely assault] rather than as an assault with a deadly weapon"].)11
[23 Cal.App.5th 1108]
Consequently, one of the duplicative
[233 Cal.Rptr.3d 694]
convictions and the deadly weapon enhancement must be stricken.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.