People v. Mase CA1/5, A160275

In Sept. 2018 appellant Uluao David Mase (age 27) participated in a violent group attack on a 16-year-old, causing concussion, contusions, damaged teeth; victim’s phone and belongings were taken. Appellant was identified by video and phone evidence.
Jury convicted Mase of assault by means likely to cause great bodily injury (count 1) and battery with serious bodily injury (count 2); great-bodily-injury enhancements alleged on both counts.
In a bifurcated proceeding the court found true two prior serious-felony enhancements (§ 667(a)) and a three-strikes strike based on earlier robbery and carjacking convictions; those priors added 14 years of the 21‑year aggregate term.
At sentencing Mase asked the court to strike the priors (Romero motion) and sought probation or placement in a rehabilitation program; the court denied the motion, citing violent nature of crimes, victim’s youth, and appellant’s unaddressed addiction and parole status.
The court imposed a 21‑year aggregate term (upper term doubled under strike, plus consecutive enhancements) and stayed sentence on count 2 under § 654, but did not pronounce an actual term on count 2 and the abstract omitted that count’s sentence; the jury’s § 12022.7 enhancement on count 2 was improper because great bodily injury is an element of § 243(d).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by declining to strike the three‑strikes allegation and the § 667(a) five‑year priors	People: court properly exercised discretion given appellant’s violent conduct, victim’s youth, parole status, and failure to address addiction	Mase: youth at time of priors, drug addiction, limited intervening convictions, and disproportionate sentence compared to codefendants support striking priors	No abuse of discretion; court permissibly considered factors and reasonably refused to strike priors
Whether the § 12022.7 great‑bodily‑injury enhancement on count 2 was authorized and whether sentence must be pronounced on stayed count	People: propose appellate modification under § 1260 to impose the same (upper/doubled) term on count 2	Mase: enhancement invalid on § 243(d) count and remand required because appellate court cannot assume what trial court would have imposed	Enhancement under § 12022.7 cannot attach to § 243(d); remand required so trial court can pronounce (and then stay) sentence on count 2; appellate court will not substitute its own discretionary choice

People v. Superior Court (Romero), 13 Cal.4th 497 (trial court may dismiss strike priors under § 1385)
People v. Williams, 17 Cal.4th 148 (factors for Romero consideration include offense, priors, background, prospects)
People v. Carmony, 33 Cal.4th 367 (standard of review for Romero denial: abuse of discretion; only extraordinary cases justify reversal)
People v. Shaw, 56 Cal.App.5th 582 (§ 1385 principles apply to five‑year priors under § 667(a))
People v. Johnson, 244 Cal.App.4th 384 (§ 12022.7 enhancement inapplicable where great bodily injury is an element)
People v. Alford, 180 Cal.App.4th 1463 (trial court must pronounce sentence on each count before staying under § 654; appellate remedy limits)