People v. Lucas CA2/6

Discussion Appellant’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred when it determined it lacked jurisdiction to recall his sentence. He contends, pursuant to section 1170.1, subdivision (c), his determinate sentence should run after the indeterminate sentence, the determinate sentence is “still active,” the judgment contains an “unlawful” prior prison enhancement, and the enhancement “must be stricken now.” The Attorney General, on the other hand, correctly contends that appellant is not presently entitled to section 1172.75 relief because his “current judgment,” the indeterminate sentence imposed for the 2008 conviction, does not include a prior prison term enhancement. Although the trial court’s order denying the petition was based on the erroneous belief that the determinate portion of appellant’s sentence had already been served, a ruling on appeal will not be disturbed merely because it was given for a wrong reason if the ruling would otherwise be correct upon any theory of the law applicable to the case. (People v. Zapien (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929, 976; People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 971-972.) Because appellant is presently ineligible for relief, the trial…