Section 954 provides in relevant part: "An accusatory pleading may charge two or more different offenses connected together in their commission, or different statements of the same offense or two or more different offenses of the same class of crimes or offenses, under separate counts, and if two or more accusatory pleadings are filed in such cases in the same court, the court may order them to be consolidated. the prosecution is not required to elect between the different offenses or counts set forth in the accusatory pleading, but the defendant may be convicted of any number of the offenses charged, and each offense of which the defendant is convicted must be stated in the verdict or the finding of the court." In People v. Izaguirre (2007) 42 Cal.4th 126, the court determined a firearm-related enhancement did not place the defendant in jeopardy for an offense greater than the murder with which he has been charged. the court continued: "The rule of People v. Reed (2006), barring consideration of enhancements in defining necessarily included charged offenses under the multiple conviction rule does not implicate the double jeopardy clause's protection against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal or conviction. We are not here concerned with a retrial or 'second prosecution,' but instead with a unitary trial in which section 954 expressly permits conviction of more than one crime arising out of the same act or course of conduct. . . . Conduct enhancements cannot be imposed standing alone as additional punishment. by definition, an enhancement is 'an additional term of imprisonment added to the base term.' . . to the extent defendant claims enhancements should be considered when applying the multiple conviction rule to charged offenses, our holding in Reed, supra, 38 Cal4th 1224, controls. They may not." (Izaguirre, supra, 42 Cal.App.4th at p. 134.)