Appellant received the middle term of four years for her substantive offense, plus a three-year enhancement for personal infliction of great bodily injury and a one-year enhancement for personal use of a deadly weapon. By law, the existence of multiple enhancements was a mitigating circumstance weighing greatly in favor of dismissing “all enhancements beyond a single enhancement.” (Pen. Code, § 1385, subd. (c)(2)(B).) The Court of Appeal found this sentencing factor was overlooked by defense counsel, the prosecutor, and the court. Appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel when her attorney failed to (1) request the dismissal of any enhancements, and (2) object when both the probation department and the prosecutor erroneously claimed there were no mitigating circumstances. There is no conceivable rational, tactical explanation for these omissions, and it is reasonably probable appellant would have obtained a better result at sentencing but for counsel’s deficient performance. The matter was remanded for a new sentencing hearing.
