P.

I. INTRODUCTION

After a jury trial, appellant was convicted of violations of both Penal Code sections 273a, subdivision (a) and 273d1 in connection with burns incurred by his then 17-month-old son. He appeals, claiming that the two crimes of which he was convicted were “mutually exclusive” and that, therefore, one of those convictions should be set aside. He also claims that the probation revocation fee imposed on him should be set aside because the trial court did not properly assess his ability to pay the same. We reject both arguments and affirm both the conviction and the sentence, including the probation fee imposed.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Appellant and his girlfriend, Elina Jimenez, are the parents of the victim in this case, then 17-month-old John Doe. The three of them lived together in an apartment in

1 Unless otherwise noted, all further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1 Daly City. They also shared a car and a very similar job: Jimenez worked the day shift at two Shell gasoline stations in Daly City and appellant the graveyard shift. During the afternoon of December 28, 2010, when Jimenez was working at one of those stations, appellant was…