As Division Four noted in In re Rodney (1999), 73 Cal. App. 4th at page 39, "The Legislature amended section 667.6, subdivisions (c) and (d) because it was concerned that a defendant convicted of assault with the intent to commit a sexual offense could not be sentenced under section 667.6." The report of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary describes the reason for the amendment as follows: 'This bill would include in the enumerated list of sex offenses in which a full, separate, and consecutive term may or shall be imposed, certain assaults which were committed with the intent to commit specified sex offenses. the purpose of this bill is to increase the maximum sentence for specified sexual offenses.' (Sen. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 4284 (1987-1988 Reg. Sess.).) The same purpose is reiterated by the Assembly Committee on Public Safety: 'According to the author's staff, the purpose of AB 4284 is to allow the imposition of full consecutive terms for assault with intent to commit a sexual offense. Many assaults with intent to commit a sexual offense would have been a rape or other offense had the victim not fought the assailant. Existing law does not allow full consecutive terms in these assault cases, thus penalizing a victim who fights back. This bill would cure this inequity by allowing full consecutive terms in these cases.' (Assem. Com. on Public Safety, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 4284 (1987-1988 Reg. Sess.).) The legislative analyst explained: 'This bill expands the number of criminal offenses for which full consecutive prison terms may be imposed.' (Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 4284 (1987-1988 Reg. Sess.), italics omitted.)" (In re Rodney, supra, 73 Cal. App. 4th at pp. 39-40.)