People v. C.D. (In re C.D.), 18 Cal. App. 5th 1021

On July 5, 2015, appellant C.D. drove a stolen Acura in a caravan; police officers stopped nearby and activated lights.
Officer Hearn stood by his open driver's door with his gun drawn; appellant accelerated the Acura and drove it toward a gap between Hearn’s patrol car and a nearby SUV.
The Acura’s left front fender struck Hearn’s patrol car door area; Hearn fired shots, one striking appellant and causing loss of an eye.
District attorney filed a juvenile petition alleging: (1) assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer (Pen. Code §245(c)); (2) assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury on a peace officer (Pen. Code §245(c)); and (3) taking/ driving a vehicle without owner’s permission (Veh. Code §10851(a)).
At the contested hearing the court found all counts true, concluding the act of accelerating the car toward Hearn constituted an assault; appellant was committed to juvenile custody.
On appeal the court considered whether subdivision (c) of Penal Code §245 supports multiple convictions based on the same act and addressed sufficiency of evidence and Pitchess disclosure issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §245(c) supports multiple convictions for (1) assault with a deadly weapon and (2) assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury based on the same act	The People argued §245(a) subdivisions can support multiple convictions and so §245(c) should too when based on same act against a peace officer	Appellant argued §245(c) sets out a single offense that can be committed in two ways and thus only one conviction may stand	Court held §245(c) describes a single offense (two means of committing it); reversed one §245(c) finding
Whether evidence was insufficient to support at least one §245(c) assault finding	N/A (People defended sufficiency)	Appellant argued there was no assault because the car did not actually strike the officer and there was room to pass safely	Court rejected insufficiency claim and affirmed one assault finding
Whether the trial court abused discretion denying Pitchess discovery	Appellant sought disclosure of police personnel records; argued disclosure required	People opposed	Court found trial court properly exercised its discretion on Pitchess motion
Effect on juvenile confinement if one assault finding reversed	People argued reversal would not reduce confinement due to stayed term under §654	Appellant argued reversal should affect sentence	Court modified judgment reversing one assault true finding; confinement unaffected because one count was stayed

People v. Vidana, 1 Cal.5th 632 (authority that §954 does not permit multiple convictions for different statements of the same offense when based on the same act)
People v. Gonzalez, 60 Cal.4th 533 (construction of statutory subdivisions and legislative intent controls whether subdivisions create separate offenses)
People v. White, 2 Cal.5th 349 (upholding dual convictions where separate subdivisions create distinct offenses)
In re Mosley, 1 Cal.3d 913 (pre-2011 §245 construed to define a single offense where deadly weapon and force likely to produce great bodily injury were alternative means)
In re Jonathan R., 3 Cal.App.5th 963 (analysis of §245(a) subdivisions and lesser-included offense rule)
People v. Page, 3 Cal.5th 1175 (distinguishing theft and non-theft forms of a statute for sentencing/resentencing analysis)