In People v. Valdez (1994) 23 Cal. App. 4th 46, the defendant was convicted for both continuous sex abuse of a child under the age of 14 and five lewd acts with the same child. First, the court held that the defendant was properly prosecuted for all of these offenses, under section 288.5, subdivision (c) which "explicitly permits such alternative charges." (Id. at p. 48.) Second, it concluded that the individual crimes proscribed by section 288 were not necessarily included lesser offense of section 288.5 and therefore the multiple convictions were proper. It reasoned, "though they are 'alternative' offenses in that they may not result in double punishment, they are not 'alternative' in the sense that commission of the one necessarily constitutes an acquittal of the other. " (Id. at p. 49.) In Valdez, the prosecution may well have complied with subdivision (c) in charging the offenses "in the alternative." The opinion does not make it clear. However, if the offenses had in fact been charged in the alternative, it necessarily follows that multiple convictions would have been impermissible. Further, the fact that the other sex offenses were not lesser-included offenses to section 288.5 is irrelevant to whether multiple convictions were proper under the language of subdivision (c). The Valdez opinion is also in error to the extent it considered the "alternative" charging requirement of section 288.5, subdivision (c) to be no more than a restatement of the double punishment prohibition in section 654. If, as section 288.5 proscribes, two sex offenses involving the same victim during the same period of time may not be charged, except in the alternative, the statute precludes the possibility of ever encountering a section 654 decision. This is because the jury should be instructed that an election must be made between the two alternative charges. In the face of a choice between the alternatives, there can only be one conviction. Thus, the section 654 situation does not arise. In support of the trial court's staying of the section 288 sex offenses pursuant to section 654, the Valdez court reasoned: "Inasmuch as the prosecution cannot know in advance which offenses will: (1) prevail with the trier of fact, including the trial court sitting as a 13th juror; (2) be subsequently sustained on appeal; (3) never be retroactively declared invalid, the sentences imposed on the lesser of the 'alternative' crimes should merely be stayed in accordance with the rationale long ago adopted in In re Wright (1967) 65 Cal. 2d 650, 654, 56 Cal. Rptr. 110, 422 P.2d 998 and footnote 4." (Valdez, supra, 23 Cal. App. 4th at p. 49.)