In People v. Jimenez (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 286, the defendant was convicted of two Penal Code section 269 offenses, both of which were based on underlying sodomy violations. (Jiminez, at pp. 288-290.) The trial court imposed consecutive terms for the Penal Code section 269 offenses under Penal Code section 667.6, subdivision (d), and the defendant claimed on appeal that this was error because Penal Code section 269 was not listed in Penal Code section 667.6, subdivision (e). (Jiminez, at p. 290.) The Fifth District Court of Appeal rejected his contention. The court pointed out that Penal Code section 269 had not existed when Penal Code section 667.6 was enacted, and, while both of the statutes aggravated the punishment for certain sex offenses, they did so on different bases. (Jiminez, at pp. 291-292.) The Fifth District concluded that the two statutes are "cumulative, not alternative, to each other." (Jiminez, at p. 292.) It found no error in the court applying Penal Code section 667.6, subdivision (d) where the underlying offense that triggered application of Penal Code section 269 was listed in Penal Code section 667.6, subdivision (e) because the necessary "factual predicate" for application of Penal Code section 667.6, subdivision (d) had been established. (Jiminez, at p. 291.)