The opinion
NICHOLSON, J., Concurring.
I concur in part 5. of the Discussion and in the result reached in the majority opinion; however, I do not concur in the remainder of the opinion. Since there was no substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding that petitioner was armed with a deadly weapon when he committed the current offenses and there was no other aspect of the current offenses that disqualifies petitioner from resentencing under the Three *1344 Strikes Reform Act, it is unnecessary to consider petitioner’s other arguments. This case must be remanded for the trial court to either resentence petitioner or find petitioner too dangerous to resentence under the Three Strikes Reform Act. Nothing stated in the majority opinion, except for the finding that there was no substantial evidence that petitioner was armed with a deadly weapon, is necessary to the disposition or helpful to the court or the parties on remand. Accordingly, I would simply find the evidence was insufficient to sustain the deadly weapon finding and remand for further proceedings.