In some cases, where the proceedings result in an opinion, the Court of Appeal will discuss the expiration of the stay in its disposition. (See, e.g., Claypool v. Superior Court (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 1092, 1100 [stay "is vacated upon finality of this opinion"]; People v. Superior Court (Valenzuela) (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 485, 504 [stay "is dissolved upon the issuance of the remittitur"]; A.M. v. Superior Court (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 343, 355 [stay "vacated upon finality of the opinion as to this court"].) In other cases, such as this matter, the Court of Appeal's opinion will not address the stay.
(People v. Cervantes (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 860, 871 [upholding search of unlocked center console based on front passenger's probation search condition].) This case is thus unlike Claypool v. Superior Court (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 1092, where the parolee in the back seat of a moving car did not reasonably have access to the locked glove compartment whose key was on the same keychain as the ignition key. We do not address the Attorney General's alternative theory for search of the jacket as a search incident to arrest for resisting (Pen. Code, ยง 148) because: (1) it is unnecessary in light of the PRCS search, and (2) on appeal the prosecution may not offer a justification for a search it did not rely upon in the trial court (Lorenzana v. Superior Court (1973) 9 Cal.3d 626, 640).