P.

facts” (§ 667, subd. (c)(6)); and (5) If not, may the trial court exercise its discretion to impose a consecutive or concurrent sentence on count 3? We have received their responses. We conclude the trial court erred in sentencing appellant on count 3. The court erred in imposing a concurrent sentence under section 654 and in failing to double the two-year middle term for appellant’s strike to four years. We remand the matter to that court with directions to determine whether a consecutive sentence on count 3 of 16 months, or one-third the middle term as doubled for his strike, is mandated under the Three Strikes law and, if not, to exercise its discretion to impose a consecutive or concurrent sentence. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

On October 16, 2010, appellant attended a birthday party on Cerritos Avenue in Long Beach. Appellant’s brother, Gerardo, saw a black object bulging from appellant’s pocket, which led him to believe appellant had a gun. A “couple days before the party,” appellant had shown Gerardo his black semiautomatic handgun. About 7:30 p.m., Long Beach police responded to a report of someone with a gun at a party in that vicinity.…