Petitioner was ineligible for resentencing under Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Prop. 36) where his prior arming enhancement was found true by a jury, but the trial court struck the additional punishment at sentencing. Quinones was convicted in 1996 of drug offenses and possession of a firearm by a felon. An allegation that he was personally armed during the drug offenses and two prior strikes were found true. The court imposed a sentence for the felon-in-possession charge, but struck the arming allegation as unnecessary. Quinones was ultimately sentenced to 75 years to life under the Three Strikes law. In 2013, he petitioned for resentencing under the Act, arguing that he was eligible for resentencing because the trial court struck the arming enhancement. The trial court denied the petition and Quinones appealed. Held: Affirmed. An inmate is ineligible for resentencing under the Act if he or she was armed with a firearm or deadly weapon during the commission of the current offense. (Pen. Code, §§ 1170.126, subd. (e)(2); 667, subd. (e)(2)(C)(iii); 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(C)(iii).) Here, the facts showed that Quinones was armed with a firearm and the jury found those facts true beyond a reasonable doubt. Although the trial court found it “unnecessary” to add the additional term for the firearm enhancement, this did not change the fact that Quinones was armed with a firearm. The factual finding that an enhancement is true is not ified when a sentencing court strikes an enhancement allegation in the interests of justice under Penal Code section 1335 and it may be considered to determine whether a petitioner is eligible for resentencing under the Act.