Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. Nos. CM022925, CM023328
SIMS, Acting P.J.
Defendant Aaron James Ripley appeals his prison sentence following a conviction for possession for sale of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) and residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459). Defendant contends his sentence should be modified because the trial court’s sentence was unauthorized. The trial court imposed three one-year prison term enhancements under section 667.5, subdivision (b), as well as two five-year prior serious felony conviction enhancements under section 667, subdivision (a)(1). Two of the prison term enhancements were based on the same prior convictions as the serious felony enhancements. Defendant contends the trial court should have stricken the two one-year enhancements that were based on the same prior convictions as the two five-year enhancements. The People concede the error. We agree and order these two duplicative one-year enhancements stricken from defendant’s prison sentence.
Undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On July 13, 2006, Defendant pled no contest to the charge of possessing methamphetamine for sale in Chico under Health and Safety Code section 11378. In addition, defendant pled no contest to the charge of residential burglary in Chico under section 459.
At the taking of his plea in the trial court, defendant admitted the following serious felony enhancements:
Defendant admitted that he had been convicted of robbery in Sacramento County in 1999 (§ 212.5) upon his involvement in a carjacking. Defendant also admitted that he had been convicted of burglarizing his sister’s home in Glenn County in 2000 (§ 459). In addition, defendant admitted having served prior separate prison terms for those same felonies of robbery and burglary. Defendant admitted to a prison sentence of two years for the robbery in 1999. He also admitted to a separate prison sentence of four years for the 2000 residential burglary. He also admitted a prison term for petty theft with a prior, that was not a serious felony conviction.
On August 10, 2006, the trial court sentenced defendant to the aggregate prison term of 22 years four months. Defendant’s sentence comprised an eight-year term for first degree burglary (§ 459), two consecutive five-year serious felony enhancements (§ 667.5, subd. (a)(1)), three consecutive one-year prior prison term enhancements (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), and a consecutive one-year four month subordinate term for possession for sale of methamphetamine (§§ 1170.12 and 667, subd. (c)(2)).
As is apparent, defendant contends this sentence is in error and that the two one-year enhancements under section 667.5, subdivision (b), for the two prior prison terms that were served for the robbery and burglary convictions must be stricken from defendant’s prison sentence. The People concede the error.
DISCUSSION
In People v. Jones (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1142, at pages 1144-1145, the California Supreme Court determined that when the electorate enacted what is now section 667, subdivision (a)(1), it did not intend for a prison sentence to be enhanced for both a prior conviction and for a prison term imposed on that conviction. The Jones court found that “when multiple statutory enhancement provisions are available for the same prior offense, one of which is a section 667 enhancement, the greatest enhancement, but only that one, will apply.” (Jones, supra, at p. 1150)
It is permissible to impose enhancements under both sections 667, subdivision (a)(1), and 667.5, subdivision (b), if the enhancements are based on multiple prior convictions that are part of one prison term. (Seee.g., People v. Ruiz (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1653, 1666-1671; People v. Irvin (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 180, 187-193; People v. Medina (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 986.) In this case, however, it is clear that each prison term (for robbery and burglary) was based only on one serious felony (robbery and burglary). Therefore, appellant’s two five-year enhancements under section 667, subdivision (a)(1), shall remain, but the two one-year enhancements for the prior prison terms for the same offense shall be stricken.
DISPOSITION
Prior prison term enhancements number one and number two are hereby stricken. The judgment is otherwise affirmed. The trial court shall prepare an amended abstract of judgment to reflect the striking of the two prior prison term enhancements and shall forward a certified copy of the abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
We concur: NICHOLSON , J., ROBIE , J.