Is a conviction under section 245(a)(1) of the California Criminal Code for assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm overlooked?

Significantly, a "conviction under the deadly weapon prong of section 245(a)(1) is a serious felony, but a conviction under the [great bodily injury] prong is not." (People v. Delgado, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 1065.)

Here, defendant acknowledges that "[t]ypically, the admission of ... an enhancement by itself puts an end to the question as to how to characterize a felony; under the law it is deemed serious." He claims, however, that this is an unusual case, implying the admission should be overlooked "because the trial court back in 1982 failed to make a finding as to the conduct enhancement." This argument ignores the question presented below: whether there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged prior was a serious felony. As stated in Trujillo, such a determination asks whether a prior conviction amounts to a serious felony based upon a consideration of "'"the nature of the conviction"'" at issue. (People v. Trujillo, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 179.) The nature of the conviction and the sentence imposed thereon are not one and the same. Whether the trial court made a particular finding and/or imposed sentence on the conduct enhancement does not exclusively address the nature of the conviction. Further, we do not agree the admission should be overlooked as a result.