Opinion
E067865
08-22-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EDDIE JOSEPH RIVERA, Defendant and Appellant.
Richard De La Sota, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. INF1202934) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Charles Everett Stafford, Jr., Judge. Affirmed. Richard De La Sota, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In a previous appeal, this court affirmed defendant's judgment of conviction but modified his sentence to remove two sentence enhancements. This reduced his determinate and indeterminate sentences by six years each. We ordered the clerk of the superior court to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment. (People v. Rivera (Nov. 30, 2016, E063917) [nonpub. opn.].) Defendant appeals from the superior court's order correcting the abstract of judgment. We affirm.
STATEMENT OF PROCEDURE
Defendant was convicted of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 664, subd. (e)); being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29900, subd. (a)); being a felon in possession of ammunition (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1)); attempted robbery (§§ 211, 664); and robbery (§ 211). The jury also found true allegations that defendant had three prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (c) & (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)), three prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd (a)), and three prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The court sentenced defendant to a determinate term of 38 years and an indeterminate term of 103 years in prison.
Section references are to the Penal Code except where otherwise indicated. --------
On appeal, in People v. Rivera, supra, E063917, defendant argued that one of the prior serious felony convictions used to enhance both the determinate and indeterminate sentences should be stricken because it was not "brought and tried separately" as required by section 667, subdivision (a). Defendant also argued one of the prior prison term convictions should be stricken from both the determinate and indeterminate terms. The People conceded on both points and this court agreed.
The disposition in People v. Rivera, supra, E063917, was as follows: "The judgment is modified to strike one of the five-year prior prison term enhancements and one of the one-year prior prison term enhancements for each of the indeterminate and determinate sentences, leaving a total indeterminate sentence of 97 years to life and a total determinate sentence of 32 years. The clerk of the superior court is ordered to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment, as indicated above. As modified, the judgment is affirmed."
On March 2, 2017, the superior court held an "Ex Parte Hearing Re: Remittitur." Defendant was not present, but he was represented by a deputy public defender. Defense counsel asked for a continuance to have defendant transported from prison. The trial court denied the request. The court ordered the abstract of judgment modified to reflect a determinate sentence of 32 years and an indeterminate sentence of 97 years to life, as directed by this court.
This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Upon examination of the record, counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts and a potentially arguable issue, and requesting this court conduct an independent review of the record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has not done so.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the entire record and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The court's order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J. We concur: MILLER
J. SLOUGH
J.