Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County No. RIF145733. Roger A. Luebs, Judge.
Jan B. Norman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RAMIREZ P.J.
The facts underlying defendant’s convictions are set forth in People v. Vradenburg (May 7, 2010, E049001) [nonpub. opn.].
A jury convicted defendant, Kerry Vradenburg, of battery causing serious bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (d)), violation of a protective order resulting in physical injury (§ 273.6, subd. (b)) and inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant (§ 273.5, subd. (a)), during which he inflicted serious bodily injury under circumstances involving domestic violence (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)). In bifurcated proceedings, defendant admitted having suffered three prison priors (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) a serious prior (§ 667, subd. (a)) and a strike prior (§ 667, subds. (b)-(e)(1)). Defendant was sentenced to prison and the People appealed, claiming his sentence was improper in several respects. We agreed, and reversed the sentenced and remanded the case for resentencing consistent with the views expressed in our opinion (People v. Vradenburg (May 7, 2010, E049001) [nonpub. opn.]). Upon remand, defendant was resentenced to prison for 14 years in accordance with the directions of this court.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
Discussion
Defendant appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him. 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 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and a potential arguable issue and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
For reasons best expressed in our previous opinion in this case, the sentencing court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss his strike.
We have reviewed the record and find no arguable issues. After concluding our review of the record, we affirm the sentence, while directing the trial court to correct errors in the abstract of judgment.
Disposition
The sentence upon remand is affirmed. The trial court is directed to amend the abstract of judgment to show that the three year enhancement attached to count three was imposed pursuant to section 12022.7, subdivision (e) and not section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(6) as the abstract currently states. In addition, the second true finding under section 667.5, subdivision (b) must be reflected in the abstract, with a notation that punishment for it was stayed by the sentencing court.
We concur: RICHLI J., KING J.