People v. Borghesi

Judge NIETO

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I respectfully dissent from the majority's conclusion in part III. In all other respects, I concur.

In part III, the majority concludes that the information charging two counts of aggravated robbery, both arising out of the incident *23on September 18, 1997, was unconstitutionally muitiplicitous, and thus violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. I disagree with this conclusion.

I

Multiplicity is the charging of the same offense in multiple counts. Such a practice violates the prohibition against double jeopardy because it…