Mandanas was charged with felony assault and felony harassment in an incident. The court doesn’t get too much into facts, but I’ll take their word for it. Because the charges involved a firearm, he picked up two enhancements. The enhancement statute is worded such that seems to clearly anticipate the possibility of multiple enhancements in the case of multiple offenses.” State v. DeSantiago, 149 Wn.2d 402, 423, 68 P.3d 1065 (2003) (Madsen, J. concurring in part, dissenting in part). Mandana argued that the sentencing statute precluded multiple enhancements. However, the sentencing statute deals only with calculating previous offense scores.
While armed with a firearm, Mandanas committed two offenses. Each offense was eligible for a firearm enhancement. For the reasons stated above, both of Mandanas’s enhancements are mandatory and they must be served consecutively. We affirm the Court of Appeals.