Does the Attorney General have the authority to strike a sentence pursuant to section 667.5?

As the Attorney General argues, the sentence was unauthorized by law because the trial court failed to either impose the one-year enhancement for the robbery prior prison term or to strike it pursuant to section 1170.1, subdivision (h), and the case should be remanded to superior court for proper sentencing. ⁸ A sentencing court is required to impose an additional one-year enhancement term where a section 667.5, subdivision (b) allegation has been found true, unless the court finds " 'circumstances in mitigation' " and " 'states on the record its reasons.' " (People v. Jordan (1986) 42 Cal.3d 308, 314-315, 228 Cal.Rptr. 197, 721 P.2d 79; citations omitted.) Here, the trial court neither stated that it was granting the motion to strike nor cited any mitigating circumstances or reasons for doing so. We therefore conclude that the failure to impose the one-year enhancement or to strike it pursuant to section 1170.1, subdivision (h) resulted in a sentence unauthorized by law and that the case should be remanded so that the court may make a proper sentencing choice.