Appellant was convicted of carjacking, and the jury also found that appellant had used a firearm while committing the offense, in violation of Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (b) [10-year enhancement], and 12022.5, subdivision (a)(2) [4-year enhancement]. The trial court sentenced him to nine years in state prison, including a four year enhancement for the 12022.5 enhancement, rather than the 10-year enhancement under 12022.53, which the trial court found would be cruel or unusual punishment. The prosecutor appealed, contending that imposition of the 12022.53 enhancement was mandatory and the sentence not cruel or unusual. The appellate court here reversed. Imposition of the 12022.53 enhancement is mandatory, and the 10-year sentence was not cruel or unusual punishment in this case. Appellant was an active participant in the offense whose motive was financial gain, and he used the weapon in a threatening manner. Nothing in the nature of the offense or how it was committed allowed striking the mandatory enhancement.