Does remand and remand serve any purpose in sentencing for assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm?

We disagree with the People that no purpose would be served by remand. "Generally, when the record shows that the trial court proceeded with sentencing on the erroneous assumption it lacked discretion, remand is necessary so that the trial court may have the opportunity to exercise its sentencing discretion at a new sentencing hearing." (People v. Brown (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1213, 1228.) Here, at sentencing, the trial court lacked discretion as to the firearm enhancement. Under the newly amended section 12022.53, it now has discretion. While the fact the trial court found aggravating factors to impose the upper term of five years (rather than two or three years) is suggestive, it is not the equivalent to adding an additional 33 years four months (the aggregate of the three firearm terms imposed here) and does not foreclose the possibility of the court striking the firearm enhancement. ( 211, 12022.53.)