California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. LaFlamme, C086930 (Cal. App. 2020):
every defendant who violates [the inmate assault statute] necessarily also violates the lesser offense described in [the assault statute]." (People v. Milward, supra, 52 Cal.4th 580, 588-589, italics omitted.) The court further explained, "[t]he law prohibits simultaneous convictions for both a greater offense and a lesser offense necessarily included within it, when based on the same conduct" and " '[w]hen the jury expressly finds defendant guilty of both the greater and lesser offense . . . the conviction of [the greater] offense is controlling, and the conviction of the lesser offense must be reversed.' " (Id. at p. 589.)
Here, like in Milward, defendant was convicted of both inmate assault and assault with a deadly weapon arising out of the same conduct. (People v. Milward, supra, 52 Cal.4th at pp. 582-583.) We conclude the inmate assault conviction ( 4500) is controlling and the lesser included assault conviction is prohibited. We, accordingly, reverse the assault conviction ( 245, subd. (a)(1)) and strike the accompanying court facilities and operations assessments. The trial court is instructed to amend the abstract of judgment.
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.