On the evidence presented to the jury in a case of pimping and pandering, can the jury conclude that appellant was guilty only of attempted pandering and/or pandering?

On the evidence presented, there was no legally cognizable theory upon which the jury could conclude that appellant was guilty only of attempted pandering and attempted pimping, as charged in counts 1 through 6. (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1063 [instructions on lesser included offenses require more than an unexplained rejection of the prosecution's evidence].) During the discussion on jury instructions appellant's defense counsel agreed with the trial court that appellant was raising an alibi defense. The jury was presented with two clear choicesthe prosecution's evidence established completed acts of pimping and pandering, while appellant's defense, if believed, required an acquittal. Appellant was "either guilty of the crime charged or not guilty of any crime," and no instruction on the lesser included attempt offenses was required. (People v. Barton (1995) 12 Cal.4th 186, 196, fn. 5.)