(Super. Ct. No. 08F01430)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robie, J.
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
A jury found defendant Scott David Mackenroth guilty of corporal injury to a cohabitant (count one) and assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (count two). In connection with both counts, the jury found a great bodily injury enhancement to be true. Both counts involved the same victim and the same incident.
The court imposed an aggregate term of five years; that is, the low term of two years, plus three years for the enhancement, on both counts, and stayed sentence on count one. The court suspended execution of sentence and granted defendant probation subject to certain terms and conditions, including one year in county jail.
Defendant appeals. He contends (1) his federal right against double jeopardy was violated in being convicted of both offenses, and (2) insufficient evidence supports the jury's findings of great bodily injury. We affirm.
A domestic dispute led to defendant punching the victim eight times and kicking her. The victim sustained a bloody nose, black eye, cut lip, and pain in her teeth, ribs, and knees. A week later, she complained of soreness and officers noticed that the bruising in her eye had gotten worse.
Defendant contends that his convictions on counts one and two, together with the enhancements, violated his Fifth Amendment right not to be placed twice in jeopardy for the same offense. He is not correct. In People v. Sloan (2007) 42 Cal.4th 110, our Supreme Court rejected the proposition that enhancements are considered in determining whether an offense is a necessarily included offense of another offense for purposes of the rule against multiple convictions. (Id. at pp. 113-114; see also People v. Izaguirre (2007) 42 Cal.4th 126, 128-129, 133.) Sloan and Izaguirre further stated that federal double jeopardy principles are not implicated in a case such as this because "we are directly concerned only with multiple convictions in a unitary trial, not multiple punishments in successive unrelated criminal proceedings." (Sloan, at p. 121; Izaguirre, at p. 133.) Defendant claims Sloan was ...