In People v. Cook (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 910, the appellate court expressly disagreed with Fenenbock, supra, 46 Cal.App.4th 1688, holding that the trial court did not err by relying on the overt act allegations which revealed the conspiracy was to commit murder by means of a firearm, and by instructing the jury, sua sponte, on conspiracy to commit an assault with a firearm as a lesser included offense. The Cook court reasoned: "An accusatory pleading does not fail to give notice merely because an overt act, or any other charged act, is not personally committed by a defendant. Defendants who do not directly commit an offense have long been treated as principals equally liable under the law for the criminal acts committed by their accomplices and 'case law has long held due process notice satisfied as to defendants prosecuted as aiders and abettors, accessories after the fact, or conspirators.' This is so because the accused receives adequate notice of the prosecution's theory from the evidence introduced at the preliminary hearing. In a case where a defendant is charged with murder and conspiracy to commit murder, the charge of conspiracy serves to give a defendant actual notice that he is subject to accomplice liability for the murder. Additionally, principles of due process require that the overt acts be pleaded with particularity in order to give defendants notice of the nature and cause of the charge so that the defendant may defend against that charge. It cannot be said then that an accusatory pleading charging conspiracy, fails as a matter of law to give sufficient notice of the charged offense and any lesser included offense." (Cook, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at pp. 920-921.) In Cook, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at page 914, the defendants were charged with the crime of conspiracy to commit murder. The information alleged the defendants conspired to commit murder, and alleged seven overt acts in support of that charge, which included that the defendants acquired a gun to seek revenge against the victims, went to a clothing store and bought watch caps, cut eyeholes in the watch caps, met to discuss killing the victims, entered the victims' apartment, shot and killed one victim, and shot and wounded a second victim. (Id. at p. 919, fn. 22.) The appellate court in Cook, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at pages 921-922, held, "the information provided sufficient notice that defendants agreed to commit an offense that included the lesser included offense of assault with a firearm. . . .Looking to the accusatory pleading as a whole, the information gave notice that defendants were charged with conspiracy to commit murder by means of a firearm and therefore also gave notice of the lesser included offense of conspiracy to commit assault with a firearm. Accordingly, the jury was properly instructed on the lesser included offense of conspiracy to commit assault with a firearm." In Cook, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at pages 919-920, the appellate court concluded, in that case, conspiracy to commit an assault with a firearm was a lesser included offense of conspiracy to commit murder because some of the seven overt acts alleged in the information referred to a firearm. The information in Cook did not specifically allege the commission of the overt acts in the conjunctive; instead it alleged the defendants "'committed the following overt act and acts.'" (Id. at p. 919, fn. 22.)