Filed 1/24/20 P. v. Garcia CA5

Opinion following rehearing

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JOSE GARCIA,

Defendant and Appellant.

F079051

(Super. Ct. No. F18902878)

OPINION

THE COURT*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Michael G. Idiart, Judge.

Allan E. Junker, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Eric L. Christoffersen and Sally Espinoza, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

Defendant Jose Garcia contends on appeal his prior prison term enhancement should have been stricken rather than stayed. By way of a corrected minute order, we are informed that the trial court has stricken this enhancement. Thus, the appeal is moot and we dismiss.

BACKGROUND

On January 29, 2019, defendant pled no contest to driving the wrong direction while evading a peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.4; count 1) and admitted having served a prior prison term (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)), in exchange for an indicated 16 month “lid” and dismissal of defendant’s remaining counts.

On March 26, 2019, the trial court sentenced defendant to 16 months in prison on count 1. The court also imposed, and then stayed, a one-year term for the prior prison term enhancement.

On March 27, 2019, defendant filed a notice of appeal.

On June 7, 2019, the trial court corrected the minute order and abstract of judgment to reflect its striking of the prior prison term enhancement.

DISCUSSION

When a trial court finds a prior prison term allegation to be true, the trial court must either impose the additional one-year term or strike the enhancement. (People v. Langston (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1237, 1241 [prior prison term enhancement is “mandatory unless stricken”].)

Here, the trial court corrected the error after defendant appealed. Accordingly, defendant has received the relief he sought and we can offer no further relief. As a result, the appeal is moot.

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.