Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. CM025113
RAYE, J.After convoluted proceedings we omit, defendant pled no contest to driving under the influence and admitted two prior prison terms, and the trial court imposed a stipulated five-year prison sentence. (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a); Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b).) Defendant timely appealed.
Defendant’s appeal seeks additional credit for time he was committed to the California Rehabilitation Center (CRC) after a prior no contest plea, before he was deemed an ineligible parolee. (See People v. Mitchell (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1145.)
Defendant also filed a habeas corpus petition seeking the same relief. The People’s response in this court conceded he was entitled to those credits unless he had waived them as part of his plea bargain. We issued an order to show cause returnable before the trial court and have now been advised that the trial court granted defendant those credits and issued an amended abstract of judgment dated November 12, 2008.
On December 10, 2008, defendant’s appellate counsel filed a “status report” with this court, stating in part that “the appeal . . . presents the issue of time credits for time served in [CRC]. This is the only issue presented for appeal. The same subject of entitlement to time credits was also presented by my client in a pro per habeas petition filed with this court. (C 059001) This court granted the writ and ordered the matter returned to the trial court. Therefore it would appear that the appeal is moot.” Counsel also states defendant instructed her “that he wished to keep the appeal open because of some difficulty with the [prison authorities’] honoring the amended abstract of judgment in his habeas petition,” and counsel declined to dismiss the appeal for that reason.
“It has been held that a proceeding to review directly a conviction or sentence is rendered moot so as to preclude decision, where the controversy is resolved in the accused’s favor in another proceeding and the accused thereby secures what he is seeking on direct review.” (Annot., When Criminal Case Becomes Moot so as to Preclude Review of or Attack on Conviction or Sentence (1966) 9 A.L.R.3d 462, 475, § 6(a); see Cunha v. Superior Court (1933) 217 Cal. 249, 250-252.)
Appellate counsel concedes defendant has been granted the relief sought on appeal. Although an otherwise moot criminal appeal may be maintained to remove “prejudicial collateral consequences” (6 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Criminal Appeal, § 164, p. 411; see People v. Lindsey (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 742, 743-744), defendant prevailed in the trial court and has nothing further to gain by this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
We concur: BLEASE, Acting P. J. ROBIE, J.