Izaguirre

This is a companion case to People v. Sloan (2007) 42 Cal.4th 110 (Sloan), also filed today. Sloan holds that enhancement allegations may not be considered for purposes of the rule prohibiting multiple convictions based on necessarily included offenses, also referred to as the multiple conviction rule. (See People v. Pearson (1986) 42 Cal.3d 351 [ 228 Cal.Rptr. 509 , 721 P.2d 595 ] (Pearson).) The holding in Sloan is consistent with this court’s recent decision in People v. Reed (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1224 [ 45 Cal.Rptr.3d 353 , 137 P.3d 184 ] (Reed), which held that the legal elements test, rather than the accusatory pleading test, should be used in determining whether conviction of a charged offense is barred under the rule. Since enhancements are not legal elements of the offenses to which they attach, they are not considered in defining necessarily included offenses under that test.

Both this case and Sloan were decided in the Court of Appeal before we filed our decision in Reed, supra, 38 Cal.4th 1224 . The defendant in this matter raised an argument not considered in Reed. He argues that under the high court’s decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 [ 147…