People v. Jackson CA3, C089347

Defendant Martavius Jackson and his girlfriend got into a dispute with neighbor D.B.; defendant exited a car, swung a fist, pulled a knife, and stabbed D.B. in the abdomen.
Victim required hospital treatment (12 staples) and the stab was the single discrete act underlying the charges.
Information charged two counts under Penal Code §245: (a)(1) assault with a deadly weapon and (a)(4) assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury; both counts included a §12022.7 great bodily injury enhancement.
A jury convicted Jackson on both counts; the trial court imposed an aggregate prison term of six years (3-year midterm on count one + 3-year enhancement); the sentence on count two was stayed under §654.
On appeal Jackson argued the two convictions duplicated the same act in violation of §954 and alternatively that (a)(4) is a lesser included offense of (a)(1).
The Court of Appeal vacated the conviction under §245(a)(4) as a duplicative conviction based on the same act and affirmed the judgment as modified; the sentence remained unchanged.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether convictions under §245(a)(1) and §245(a)(4) based on a single stabbing are multiple convictions barred by §954	Subdivisions can constitute separate offenses under the statute's structure (as in Gonzalez); multiple convictions permissible when subdivisions are self-contained	The two convictions are different statements of the same offense arising from one act and therefore duplication barred by §954	Vacated the §245(a)(4) conviction as a duplicative conviction arising from the single act; conviction under §245(a)(1) remains
Whether assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury (§245(a)(4)) is a lesser included offense of assault with a deadly weapon (§245(a)(1))	(Respondent did not need to prevail on this alternative)	Jackson argued (a)(4) is a lesser included offense and cannot support a separate conviction	Court did not decide this alternative because it resolved the appeal on the §954 duplication ground

People v. Vidana, 1 Cal.5th 632 (Supreme Court of California) (discusses when different statutory provisions are distinct offenses versus different statements of the same offense)
People v. Gonzalez, 60 Cal.4th 533 (Supreme Court of California) (statutory structure can indicate Legislature intended separate offenses)
People v. Aguilar, 16 Cal.4th 1023 (Supreme Court of California) (noninherently dangerous objects become deadly weapons by use likely to produce great bodily injury)
People v. Brunton, 23 Cal.App.5th 1097 (California Court of Appeal) (held §245(a)(1) and (a)(4) are different statements of the same offense when based on a single act with a noninherently dangerous object)
People v. Aledamat, 8 Cal.5th 1 (Supreme Court of California) (knife is generally not an inherently deadly weapon)
People v. Ryan, 138 Cal.App.4th 360 (California Court of Appeal) (reviewing court retains the conviction that more completely covers the defendant’s act)