P.

DISCUSSION

A. Sentence for the Weapon Use Enhancement

Defendant argues that the trial court erred in imposing a consecutive one-year term

for the weapon use enhancement attached to count 2 when the sentence on that count was

ordered to be served concurrently. The People correctly concede, but claim the matter

need not be remanded because as set forth in the next argument, the parties agree on the

sentence to be imposed. We also agree.

“The procedure for sentencing a person convicted of two or more felonies does not

contemplate imposing an enhancement separately from the underlying crime.” (People v.

Mustafaa (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1305, 1310.) In other words, specific enhancements

may not be separated from their correlative substantive offenses. Thus, if the substantive

offense is ordered to run concurrent as a subordinate term, the enhancement must do so as

well. (Ibid. [an enhancement to a count ordered to run concurrent must also run

concurrent].)

Here, the trial court sentenced defendant to two years on count 1 (assault with a

deadly weapon), a concurrent term of two years on count 2 (making criminal threats),

plus a consecutive term of one year on the…