Filed 4/1/03 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LOUIE BRACAMONTE et al., B151466 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA047288) ORDER DENYING REHEARING AND MODIFYING OPINION [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT] Defendants and Appellants. THE COURT: The petitions for rehearing by appellants and respondent having been made, read, and duly considered, IT IS ORDERED that the petitions are denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the opinion filed on February 27, 2003, is modified as follows: The text of footnote 5 on page 19 is deleted. In its stead, the following text is inserted: Respondent takes the position that the section 12022.5 firearm use enhancement on counts 1 and 3 as to Medina cannot be stricken for the reasons: (1) â the trial court was prohibited in [2000 and] 2001 from striking a personal firearm use allegation under section 12022.5â ; and (2) â [i]n 2002, a year after appellants were sentenced in this case, the California Legislature amended section 12022.5 to include subdivision (c), which provides, â Notwithstanding Section 1385 or any other provision of law, the court shall not strike an allegation under this section or a finding bringing a person within the provisions of this section.â (Stats. 2002, ch. 126 (AB 2173), Â§ 3.) This amendment was a declaration of existing law as set forth in People v. Thomas (1992) 4 Cal.4th 206, in which the California Supreme Court held that a trial court has no discretion to strike a firearm enhancement imposed under section 12022.5. (Id. at pp. 208, 212-214.)â Respondentâ s position is incorrect. Section 12022.5 must be construed in conjunction with section 12022.53 where, as here, personal firearm use under section 12022.53 is also alleged. The court strikes a section 12022.5 enhancement under subdivision (f) of section 12022.53, which provides that: â An enhancement involving a firearm specified in Section . . . 12022.5 . . . shall not be imposed on a person in addition to an enhancement imposed pursuant to this section.â (Italics added.) Such directive is mandatory. No discretion is involved. (See also People v. Jenkins (1980) 28 Cal.3d 494, 505; People v. Tanner (1979) 24 Cal.3d 514, 521.) Respondentâ s companion position is that the trial court properly imposed and stayed the section 12022.5 enhancements, because â by staying the enhancement, it preserved . . . Medinaâ s sentence in the event of a reversal on another enhancement or countâ and â safeguarded the section 12022.5 findings properly made at trial.â Respondent urges that by staying the section 12022.5 enhancements, the court â did not add â additionalâ prison termsâ proscribed by section 12022.53, which, as rephrased by respondent, â mandates that the greatest enhancement be imposed and prohibits imposition of â additional term[s] of imprisonmentâ for the enhancement. (Â§ 12022.53, subd. (f).)â This position is untenable in the face of the plain and clear language that a section 12022.5 firearm use enhancement â shall not be imposed . . . in addition to an enhancement imposed pursuant to . . . section [12022.53].â (Â§ 12022.53, subd. (f).) Moreover, such position is also based on the faulty premise that staying of the section 12022.5 enhancement is necessary â in the event of a reversal on another enhancement or count.â No such need arises. In the situation where the 2 reviewing court finds no enhancement under section 12022.53 could be imposed, then the section 12022.5 finding would be revived by operation of law. There is no change in the judgment. VOGEL (C.S.), P.J. HASTINGS, J. 3 CURRY, J.