What is the effect of the One Strike sentencing scheme on an allegation of sexual assault made pursuant to Section 667.61(m) of the Penal Code?

And it is further alleged that in the commission and attempted commission of the above offense that the victim was a minor over fourteen

[241 Cal.App.4th 480]

years of age, and that said defendant has been convicted in the present case and cases of committing an offense specified in subdivision (c) against the same victim on multiple separate occasions, pursuant to People v. Valdez(2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1515, 124 Cal.Rptr.3d 376, within the meaning of PENAL CODE SECTION 667.61(m).¹⁵

[241 Cal.App.4th 480]

[194 Cal.Rptr.3d 144]

Whether an allegation made pursuant to the One Strike sentencing scheme may be considered together with the substantive charge to allege a single offense for purposes of the accusatory pleading test, as Woods suggests, is an open question. The parties agree that courts are not to look to enhancement allegationsfor purposes of determining whether an accusatory pleading describes the offense in such a way that if the offense is committed as specified, then a lesser offense is necessarily also committed. (See People v. Wolcott(1983) 34 Cal.3d 92, 96, 100101, 192 Cal.Rptr. 748, 665 P.2d 520(Wolcott); see also People v. Bragg (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1385, 1398, 75 Cal.Rptr.3d 200.) The parties disagree, however, as to how an allegation made pursuant to the One Strike law is to be treated for purposes of applying the accusatory pleading test, i.e., whether it should be considered as part of the accusatory pleading as a whole, as Woods urges, or rather, whether it should be regarded as akin to an enhancement allegation, and therefore, not be considered for purposes of determining lesser included offenses, as the People urge.