In sum, the trial court did not err in holding that appellant was not entitled to a jury instruction on the defense of consent. Accordingly, we affirm appellant’s conviction for assault with significant bodily injury and remand to vacate his conviction for simple assault. So ordered. 1 . The government concedes that appellant’s conviction for simple assault merges into his conviction for assault with significant bodily injury. Accordingly, we remand for the limited purpose of vacating Woods’s conviction for simple assault and need not determine whether and when consent is an affirmative defense to charges of simple assault. 2 . We note that appellant does not dispute that Shelton suffered significant bodily injury. 3 . In re Khalil H., 80 A.D.3d 83, 910 N.Y.S.2d 553, 559 (2010) (<HOLDING>). 4 . People v. Lucky, 45 Cal.3d 259, 247
holding that consent was valid despite close temporal proximity between the illegal entry and consent holding that consent is not a defense to a violation of  5231 holding that consent is not a valid defense to hazing holding that because consent is not a statement and a request for consent is not an interrogation giving consent to search is a neutral fact which has no tendency to show that the suspect is guilty of any crime holding there is no consent as a matter of law where the consent was given under coercion