How have courts dealt with inconsistencies in the chain of custody at a crime laboratory?

station to the crime laboratory, but identifying numbers according to the criminalists matched the information given by the officer who had booked the evidence. In addition, the case information was consistent. Thus, although the packaging had changed from the time of collection with the placement of the plastic baggies inside KPAKs, this discrepancy did not implicate a vital link in the chain of custody given that the identifying information was consistent and there was no indication of tampering. (See People v. Wallace, supra, 44 Cal.4th 1032, 1060-1061 [repackaging of evidence did not in itself implicate a vital link in the chain of custody].) Any inadequacies in the chain of custody merely go to the weight of the evidence. (Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (2009) 557 U.S. 305, 311, fn. 1.)

Defendant argues that the trial court erred in staying sentence based on two prison prior convictions. He contends that sentence on a prison prior must either be imposed or stricken. (People v. Langston (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1237, 1241.) The issue is moot in light of the trial court's filing of an amended abstract of judgment striking the prison priors.

Page 8

The judgment is affirmed.