Merge Enhancements In Sentences to Be Served Concurrently

Enhancements for personal gun use must run consecutively: Defendant argues the trial court erred by imposing three consecutive 10-year firearm enhancements since the underlying sentences were to be served concurrently. the Attorney General argues the enhancements cannot be merged or imposed concurrently pursuant to section 1170.1, subdivision (h). Defendant has a legitimate argument that enhancement terms for personal-gun use enhancements may not be imposed consecutively if the court imposes concurrent terms on the underlying offenses. (People v. Mustafaa (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 1305, 1309, 1310; see also People v. Waite (1983) 146 Cal. App. 3d 585, 593, 194 Cal. Rptr. 245, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Jones (1988) 46 Cal. 3d 585, 600, fn. 8, 758 P.2d 1165, 250 Cal. Rptr. 635). However, as we noted, the trial court erred by imposing the terms for the underlying offenses concurrently. Weapon use enhancements imposed pursuant to section 1170.1, subdivision (h) must therefore be impose consecutively. ( 1170.1, subd. (h)).