In People v. Rodriguez (1998) 17 Cal.4th 253, the Supreme Court was presented with a situation where there was no proof that defendant admitted personally using a deadly weapon during the commission of the alleged prior assault with a deadly weapon offense, and there was no proof that any enhancement allegation relating to personal use of such a weapon was found true. The only evidence presented at the bifurcated court trial on the truth of the prior conviction was an abstract of judgment that showed that defendant had entered a plea of guilty and been convicted of "ASLT GBI/DLY WPN." ( Rodriguez, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 261.) The Rodriguez court unanimously found that this evidence was insufficient to prove that defendant personally used a deadly weapon or personally inflicted great bodily injury because: (1) a person could aid and abet such an aggravated assault without personally using a deadly weapon or personally inflicting great bodily injury; (2) a person could commit an aggravated assault by personally using force likely to produce great bodily injury without actually producing such an injury. (Ibid.) The court noted that a trial court could go beyond the least adjudicated elements of the prior conviction and could use the entire record of conviction to prove that a defendant had personally used a deadly weapon or personally inflicted great bodily injury, but found that in Rodriguez the trial court had only considered the abstract of the conviction which proved nothing more than the least adjudicated elements of the offense. ( Id. at pp. 261-262.) The court therefore found the evidence insufficient and reversed the finding that the prior constituted a strike. ( Id. at p. 262.) In People v. Rodriguez (1998) the prosecution relied exclusively on an abstract of judgment showing that the defendant had pleaded guilty to violating former section 245. ( Rodriguez, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 262.) That section embraced conduct that did constitute a strike for purposes of the Three Strikes law, as well as conduct that did not. ( Id. at p. 261.) Finding that the abstract failed to disclose any of the facts of the prior offense, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's finding upholding the prior strike. ( Id at p. 262.)