P.

INTRODUCTION

Defendant Emanuel Nash appeals from a judgment of conviction on two counts of first degree murder. With respect to the second count, Nash contends that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter on a heat of passion theory, and further asserts that the court should have instructed the jury that provocation inadequate to reduce a killing from murder to manslaughter nonetheless may suffice to negate premeditation and deliberation, thus reducing the crime to second degree murder. Nash also challenges his sentence, contending the trial court (1) improperly imposed separate terms of life without the possibility of parole as to each murder count; (2) improperly applied sentence enhancements pursuant to Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (d)1 in violation of California law and federal double jeopardy principles; and (3) erroneously imposed a parole revocation fine even though he had no possibility of being paroled. With the exception of the parole revocation fine, which we agree must be stricken, we find no error and affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

I. Charges

Nash was charged with two counts of…