Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. CM028680
HULL, J.On February 26, 2008, a highway patrol officer activated his overhead lights and attempted to stop a car driven by defendant David Charles Jackson for weaving in a traffic lane. Defendant failed to stop and instead led the officer on a high-speed chase, exceeding a speed of 100 miles per hour, running red lights, and driving eastbound in the westbound lane around blind corners. Defendant lost control of his car and crashed into an embankment. Defendant attempted to flee but was removed from his car at gunpoint.
Defendant entered a plea of no contest to a violation of Vehicle Code sections 2800.2, subdivision (a) (felony evading a police officer with wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property) and 2800.4 (felony evading a police officer by driving in the opposite direction of traffic) in exchange for dismissal of the remaining count (driving on a suspended license, a misdemeanor) and allegation (strike prior – 1992 robbery) as well as case Nos. CM027645 and SCR63076 with a waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.
The court denied probation and sentenced defendant to state prison for the upper term of three years for violation of Vehicle Code section 2800.2, subdivision (a). For defendant’s violation of Vehicle Code section 2800.4, the court stayed sentence pursuant to Penal Code section 654.
Defendant appeals. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, § 1237.5).
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
We note an error in preparation of the abstract of judgment. Defendant’s conviction for violation of Vehicle Code section 2800.4 is listed under “other orders” rather than as a conviction. We will order the abstract corrected accordingly. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185.)
DISPOSITION
The trial court is directed to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment reflecting defendant’s conviction and stayed sentence for violation of Vehicle Code section 2800.4 under the list of convictions rather than under other orders and to forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: SIMS, Acting P.J., DAVIS, J.