Robles

STONE (S.J.), P.J.

The People appeal from the trial court's order granting the defendant's motion to treat the two theft offenses to which the defendant pled no contest as misdemeanors pursuant to Penal Code [1] section 17, subdivision (b). We dismiss the appeal.

Leroy Nicholas Robles, Jr. (Robles) pled no contest to grand theft of personal property worth in excess of $400 (§§ 487, subd. (a), 489) and petty theft with prior theft-related offenses (§ 666). Both offenses are "wobblers" punishable in the discretion of the trial court as either felonies or misdemeanors.

Robles also admitted that he had two prior serious felony convictions within the meaning of California's "Three Strikes" law. (§§ 667, 1170.12.) As a result, he faced imprisonment for a term of 25 years to life in the event that the trial court opted to treat either of his latest theft offenses as a felony. (§§ 667, subd. (e)(2), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2).)

Prior to being sentenced, however, Robles successfully moved to have both of his theft offenses treated as misdemeanors pursuant to section 17, subdivision (b). The trial court, thereafter, placed Robles on three years' probation.

(1) The People appealed.…

The People appeal from the trial court’s order granting the defendant’s motion to treat the two theft offenses to which the defendant pled no contest as misdemeanors pursuant to Penal Code 1 section 17, subdivision (b). We dismiss the appeal.

Leroy Nicholas Robles, Jr. (Robles) pled no contest to grand theft of personal property worth in excess of $400 (§§ 487, subd. (a), 489) and petty theft with prior theft-related offenses (§ 666). Both offenses are “wobblers” punishable in the discretion of the trial court as either felonies or misdemeanors.

*159 Robles also admitted that he had two prior serious felony convictions within the meaning of California’s “Three Strikes” law. (§§ 667, 1170.12.) As a result, he faced imprisonment for a term of 25 years to life in the event that the trial court opted to treat either of his latest theft offenses as a felony. (§§667, subd. (e)(2), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2).)

Prior to being sentenced, however, Robles successfully moved to have both of his theft offenses treated as misdemeanors pursuant to section 17, subdivision (b). The trial court, thereafter, placed Robles on three years’ probation.

The People appealed. They contend that once…

I respectfully dissent.

The plain language of Penal Code section 1238, subdivision (a)(10) authorizes this appeal: “(a) An appeal may be taken by the people from • • • : fiO • . . [<]D (10) The imposition of an unlawful sentence .... As used in this paragraph, ‘unlawful sentence’ means ... the imposition of a sentence based upon an unlawful order of the court which strikes or otherwise modifies the effect of an enhancement or prior conviction.”

Here the trial court reduced the felony charges to misdemeanors over the People’s objection. The effect of the order was to eliminate the serious felony enhancements for sentencing purposes. Instead of 25 years to life, respondent’s maximum sentence was 2 years in the county jail. In a similar *162 case, Division Two of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, held that the People had the right to appeal. (People v. Vessell (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 285, 288-289 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 241 ].) I agree with the rule articulated therein. (See also People v. Trausch (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1239 , 1243 & fn. 5 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 836 ] [appeal from sentence after trial court reduced felony to misdemeanor]; People v. Carranza (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 528,…