People v. Guevara-Mendez CA2/6

DISCUSSION

Guevara-Mendez contends, and the Attorney General concedes, the trial court: (1) imposed an unauthorized sentence when it ordered the firearm enhancement to count 2 to run consecutive to the sentence imposed on count 1, and (2) erred when it failed to exercise its discretion to strike or impose the enhancement. We agree with both contentions. “Enhancements are . . . additional terms of imprisonment added to the base term. Enhancements are of two types: those [that] specifically attach to the term of imprisonment imposed for an underlying offense[,] and those [that] add generally to the aggregate term of imprisonment.” (People v. Mustafaa (1994)

2 Cal.App.4th 1305, 1310 (Mustafaa).) A finding that a defendant was armed with a firearm while possessing a controlled substance for sale is the former type of enhancement. (See Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (c).) A defendant cannot be sentenced on such an enhancement separately from the sentence imposed on the offense to which it is attached. (Mustafaa, at p. 1310.) The trial court accordingly erred when it ran the firearm enhancement to count 2 consecutively to the sentence on count 1 because the enhancement was tied to count…