People v. Mercer CA2/5

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant Antwone Harold Mercer appeals from a judgment following a resentencing hearing. (People v. Mercer (Nov. 19, 2019, B291181) [nonpub. opn.].) Defendant asserts: (1) the trial court erred in failing to hold a hearing on his eligibility for mental health diversion under Penal Code1 section 1001.36; (2) his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to request a mental health diversion eligibility hearing; (3) his counsel provided ineffective assistance during the resentencing hearing; (4) the trial court abused its discretion by not striking a five-year sentence enhancement under section 667, subdivision (a)(1); (5) the minute order is inconsistent with the oral pronouncement of judgment; and (6) the court failed to articulate fines, fees, and assessments on the record. We reverse and remand for the court to correct the abstract of judgment and minute order. We otherwise affirm.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Criminal Conviction and Appeal

We provided the factual background in a prior unpublished opinion (People v. Mercer, supra, B291181) and recite the relevant facts below. On the morning of September 12, 2017, defendant entered a store at which Francisco…