People v. Lopez

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GASPAR P. LOPEZ, Defendant and…

Court: Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division One.

Date published: Oct 31, 2003

B167692 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2003)

Opinion

B167692.

10-31-2003

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GASPAR P. LOPEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

Alan Siraco, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Ortega

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered following his plea of no contest to attempted murder of Diana L.(count 1), attempted murder of Hector S. (count 2), first degree burglary (count 3), and felony child endangering (count 6) and his admission of infliction of great bodily injury during an incident of domestic violence and use of a knife (counts 1 and 2). He was sentenced to a negotiated prison term of 22 years.

We appointed counsel to represent him on this appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an "Appellants Opening Brief" asking us to independently review the entire record on appeal to determine whether it contains any arguable issues.

On August 27, 2003, we advised defendant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.

The abstract of judgment shows defendant convicted of two counts of "attempted murder 2nd degree." There is no such crime. We remand for the trial court to issue an amended abstract of judgment showing defendant convicted of two counts of attempted murder.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendants attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist.[] (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

The judgment is affirmed. The matter is remanded for the trial court to issue an amended abstract of judgment eliminating reference to "2nd degree" and showing defendant convicted of two counts of attempted murder. The court is to send a copy of the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections.

We concur, VOGEL (Miriam A.), J. and MALLANO, J. --------------- Notes: Defendant advises us that the credit calculation of 375 applied by the court was incorrect and that he served 376 actual days. In response to a request by counsel, says defendant, on August 21, 2003, the trial courts clerk confirmed that the court signed an amended abstract of judgment reflecting the correct number. Accordingly, we need not address that issue.