Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County No. INF056867 Thomas N. Douglass, Jr., Judge.
Anna M. Jauregui, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Ramirez P.J.
Sheriff’s deputies set up a sting operation by placing a cordless tool kit worth $568 in the back of a vehicle in the parking lot of a Home Depot. Defendant removed the case encompassing the tool kit out of the decoy vehicle, placed it in his own vehicle, and drove away. Defendant pled guilty to one count of grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)) and admitted allegations that he had suffered a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subs. (c) & (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)) and two prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). The court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of three years eight months, consisting of the low term of 16 months, doubled pursuant to the strike prior, on count 1; one-year consecutive for one of the prior prison terms; and one-year, stayed, on the additional prior prison term.
We issued an order dated June 13, 2008, requesting the parties brief the issue of whether the court erred in staying, rather than striking, imposition of sentence on the second prior prison term enhancement. (People v. Haykel (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 146; People v. White Eagle (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1511, 1521.) The parties filed a stipulation dated July 1, 2008, concurring that this court should issue an opinion directing the trial court to strike the second prior prison term enhancement. Thus, we will direct the trial court to strike the sentence on the second prior prison term enhancement.
Defendant appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed with directions. The superior court is directed to modify the judgment to strike, rather than stay, the second prior prison term enhancement. The superior court is further directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment reflecting this modification and to deliver a certified copy of the amended minute order and abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
We concur: Gaut J., Miller J