People v. Cota, 44 Cal.App.5th 720

Victim Morales lived with family that included appellant Emmanuel Cota’s girlfriend; Morales had a recent partial leg amputation and used a prosthetic.
On August 1, 2014, Cota entered the kitchen, argued with Morales, picked up a heavy metal chair and struck Morales; the chair blow fractured Morales’s left wrist in three places and required surgery. Cota also punched Morales, causing a small lip cut.
Cota was charged in count 1 with assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245(a)(1)) (the metal chair) and in count 2 with assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245(a)(4)); both counts carried a personal great-bodily-injury enhancement (§ 12022.7).
A jury convicted Cota on both counts and found the great-bodily-injury enhancement true as to both; the sentence imposed was three years for count 1 plus a consecutive three-year enhancement, with the count 2 term stayed under § 654.
On appeal Cota argued the dual convictions violated Penal Code § 954 because the two subsections are different statements of the same aggravated-assault offense and, here, were based on the same conduct (the chair strike).
The Court of Appeal agreed, vacating the count 2 conviction and its § 12022.7 enhancement and directing correction of the abstract of judgment; the remainder of the judgment was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 245(a)(1) (assault with a deadly weapon) and § 245(a)(4) (assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury) are separate offenses or different statements of the same offense for purposes of § 954	AG: The statutory structure and separate subdivisions show the Legislature intended two distinct offenses; convictions may stand	Cota: The two provisions are alternative ways to commit the same aggravated assault; dual convictions based on the same conduct violate § 954	Court: They are different statements of the same aggravated-assault offense; dual convictions based on the same act violate § 954; vacate count 2 and its enhancement
Whether the convictions were based on the same act or on distinct acts (chair strike vs. punch)	AG (alt.): Jury could have convicted count 2 based on the punch (different factual basis)	Cota: Prosecutor argued the chair strike supported both counts; no distinct factual basis for count 2	Court: Prosecutor relied on the chair strike for both counts; convictions were based on the same conduct, so dual convictions violated § 954

People v. Vidana, 1 Cal.5th 632 (Cal. 2016) (Supreme Court used legislative history to determine when statutory variants are mere restatements of the same offense)
People v. Gonzalez, 60 Cal.4th 533 (Cal. 2014) (statutory subdivisions with distinct elements/punishments may indicate separate offenses, but not always dispositive)
In re Mosley, 1 Cal.3d 913 (Cal. 1970) (historical dictum treating assault with a deadly weapon and assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury as one offense)
People v. Brunton, 23 Cal.App.5th 1097 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (court held the two § 245 variants are different statements of the same offense and vacated a duplicate conviction)
Jonathan R. v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.App.5th 963 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (held the subdivisions are separate offenses under Gonzalez but nevertheless vacated the lesser-included finding)
People v. Aguilar, 16 Cal.4th 1023 (Cal. 1997) (describing functional identity of jury decisionmaking under § 245(a)(1) whether weapon or force used)
People v. White, 2 Cal.5th 349 (Cal. 2017) (explaining when separate statutory subdivisions constitute distinct offenses)