Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. SC060635
OPINION
Swager, J.
Defendant appeals from a judgment following his pleas of no contest and imposition of sentence. His counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any issues that would, if resolved favorably to defendant, result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; see Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259.) Defendant has been advised by counsel that he could file a supplemental brief raising any issues he wishes to call to this court’s attention. He has not done so. Upon independent review of the record, we conclude that no arguable issues are presented for review and affirm the judgment, but remand the matter to the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Since the present appeal is taken from a no contest plea, we need only concisely recite the facts pertinent to the underlying conviction as necessary to our limited review on appeal.
The underlying acts that gave rise to the charges against defendant are set forth in the preliminary hearing transcript. Defendant and Linda Marsall (Linda) had been married for 17 years before they separated on October 1, 2003. Following their separation defendant confronted Linda on several occasions despite the existence of restraining orders against him. In addition, he apparently took Linda’s discarded tax records from her garbage can and then went to her tax preparer’s office. In October 2004, Linda discovered that several items of property including tax records, photographs and bank records had been taken from her home. Defendant later gave some of these items to his friend Doug Fontana, telling Fontana that “he had been stalking [Linda] and that he had went [sic] into her garage and stole some property.”
On August 21, 2005, Linda saw defendant run by her residence and saw him throw something onto her car and then drive off. She discovered that yellow liquid had been thrown on her car and that it needed a new “paint job” that would be about $2,000.
Charles Haas who was dating Linda lived in a condominium at 111 St. Matthews in San Mateo on August 21, 2005. He had an assigned parking stall that was adjacent to the parking stall of his neighbor Clarence Travalho. When Haas arrived home on August 21 he saw people standing around Travalho’s car and observed that “all sorts of [an] acidy substance” had been “thrown all over the car.” A surveillance camera recorded the defendant putting the substance on the car.
Following a preliminary hearing, an information was filed on March 10, 2006, charging defendant with the following: stalking (Pen. Code § 646.9, subd. (b), counts 1, 2 and 4); burglary (Pen. Code § 460, subd. (a), count 3); vandalism (Pen. Code § 594, subd. (b)(1), counts 5 and 6); driving on a suspended license (Veh. Code § 14601.1, subd. (a), count 7); violation of a protective order (Pen. Code § 273.6, subd. (a), counts 8, 10 and 11); violation of a court order (Pen. Code § 166, subd. (c)(1), counts 9, 12, and 14); and, violation of a court order (Pen. Code § 166, subd. (a)(4), count 13). It was further alleged in connection with counts 4, 5 and 6 that at the time of the commission of those offenses defendant was released on bail or his own recognizance. (Pen. Code § 12022.1.) The information also included an enhancement pursuant to Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a).
On October 27, 2006, defendant entered no contest pleas to counts 1, 3 and 4 and admitted the Penal Code section 12022.1 enhancement as to count 4. He also admitted that count 3 is a serious felony within the meaning of Penal Code section 1192.7, subdivision (c). The remaining allegations were dismissed subject to a Harvey waiver. Defendant waived his right to a probation report, but a restitution report was ordered. Defendant then filed a Marsden motion and following a hearing on December 8, 2006, it was denied.
People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.
Two probation violation matters were also resolved as part of the negotiated plea.
People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.
On December 14, 2006, defendant was sentenced to six years in state prison: the upper term of four years on count 1, plus two years on the section 12022.1 enhancement. The court imposed the midterms on counts 3 and 4 to run concurrently with the sentence on count 1. He was also ordered to pay restitution fines pursuant to Penal Code sections 1202.45 and 1202.4 and a court security fee and ordered to test pursuant Penal Code section 296. The court ordered restitution to Claerence Carvalho (sic) in an amount to be determined, $2,029.01 to Charles Hess (sic) and $4,051.96 to Linda Marshall (sic). Defendant was awarded total custody credits of 186 days.
We note that the information lists the victims in the various counts as Linda Marsall, Clarence Cravalho, and Charles Hess, but elsewhere in the record they are referred to as Linda Marshall, Clarence Travalho and Charles Haas. It is abundantly clear from the record who these three victims are.
The sentence was modified at a hearing held on December 20, 2006, at which counsel for defendant and the people appeared, but defendant was not personally present. At that hearing the previously imposed sentence was modified to correct an “error in sentencing or something along those lines.” The court modified the sentence as follows: the midterm of four years on count 3 plus a one year consecutive sentence on both counts 1 and 4 for a total of six years. The judgment was also modified to increase defendant’s total custody credits to 740 days. The Penal Code section 12022.1 enhancement as to count 4 was stricken.
We note that the abstract of judgment dated “12-20-06” does not reflect the increased custody credits awarded to defendant.
DISCUSSION
Defendant was represented at all stages of the proceedings by counsel. Prior to entering his plea he executed a change of plea form and was fully advised by the court of his rights and waived those rights. We find no error in the denial of his Marsden motion. There is no sentencing error. The consecutive sentences imposed on counts 1 and 4 are proper. (People v. Black (2007) 41 Cal.4th 799, 822.)
The restitution amounts ordered to be paid by the defendant are in the same amounts as set forth in the restitution report, and no objection to the restitution order was made in the trial court. The trial court has broad discretion in setting the amount of restitution, and may use any rational method of fixing the amount, as long as it is reasonably calculated to make the victim whole. (People v. Baker (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 463, 470.)
DISPOSITION
After a full review of the record, we find no arguable issues and, accordingly, affirm the judgment. The matter is remanded to the trial court with instructions to prepare an amended abstract of judgment showing total custody credits of 740 days. The trial court is also directed to forward a copy of the corrected abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections.
We concur: Marchiano, P. J., Stein, J.