What is the effect of section 12022.53 of the California Penal Code on a defendant's sentence for assault with intent to pervert the course of justice?

Although defendant's cruel and unusual argument is based primarily on Mendez, he cursorily also argues that his "de facto LWOP sentence" is grossly disproportionate when one considers, for example, that second degree murderers previously convicted of murder may receive "as little as" 15 years to life, in the sentencing court's discretion ( 190.05, subd. (a)). But defendant committed crimes against eight separate victims and personally used a firearm in connection with the assaults against the six police officers. His use of a firearm in connection with six of the eight assaults brought him within the ambit of section 12022.53 and its significant sentencing enhancing provisions. (See, e.g., People v. Em, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at p. 973 [sentence enhancement of 25 years to life is not disproportionate to a violation of section 12022.53].)

We therefore cannot find that defendant's sentence violates either the state or federal proscriptions against cruel and/or unusual punishment.

Page 10

The judgment is affirmed.