Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): erred by submitting a charge that allowed the jury to convict him on less than a unanimous verdict in violation of the Texas Constitution and Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738, 745 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (recognizing a defendant is entitled to a unanimous verdict in felony cases). Hiatt alleges the court’s charge was erroneous because it is conceivable jurors improperly “applied testimony regarding counts 1 and 2 to convict [him] on counts 3 and 4 and on 7 and 8 to convict [him] on counts 9 and 10.” Although Hiatt asserts he was deprived of his right to a unanimous verdict, there is no jury unanimity problem in this case. The jury charge contained ten different counts, each relating to a separate and distinct offense. See Bottenfield, 77 S.W.3d at 359 (<HOLDING>). In addition, the jury was not charged in the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that under the former rules congress envisioned two separate petitions filed to review two separate final orders (B) holding that the evidence supported two separate convictions and punishments for two attempted robberies of two different victims who suffered separate and distinct harms (C) holding unanimity requirement not violated when charge stated two separate counts with two separate and distinct offenses in each case (D) holding that two distinct acts of assault with a deadly weapon taking place within a fifteen minute period were a part of the same incident and they could not reasonably be held to constitute two separate offenses each complete in itself and each of which would require a separate charge (E) holding that congress envisioned two separate petitions filed to review two separate final orders
Output (English): holding that congress envisioned two separate petitions filed to review two separate final orders