A jury convicted Mancebo of eight forcible sex offenses committed on separate dates against two different victims, qualifying the offenses for sentencing under the “One Strike” law. The jury also found that appellant personally used a gun in committing each offense, thereby qualifying him for ten year gun enhancements on each count under Penal Code section 12022.5, subdivision (a). However, the fact of the gun use was used in the calculation of the “minimum number of circumstances” necessary to impose the One Strike indeterminate terms. The trial court had imposed the enhancements anyway, believing it had the authority to substitute the specified circumstance of multiple victims for the gun use for purposes of One Strike sentencing. On appeal, appellant argued that the 12022.5, subdivision (a) enhancements were invalidly imposed, and the Court of Appeal agreed. Here, the California Supreme Court agreed that the gun enhancements were improperly imposed. The gun use, as pled and proved, was required to be used in the calculation of the One Strike sentence. The error was not harmless because the multiple victim circumstance had never been pled, and therefore could not be substituted in hindsight as a basis for the One Strike terms.