Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Alameda County Super. Ct. No. 156583
RIVERA, J.
Arturo Ambriz appeals from a judgment entered on his plea of no contest. His counsel raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief but did not do so.
On April 3, 2007, a complaint was filed charging defendant with two counts of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 664, subd. (a)) and assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b)). Each of the counts included firearm use and great bodily injury enhancements, as well as serious felony allegations. The charges stemmed from an incident in which defendant committed a drive-by shooting of a security guard following an argument outside of a nightclub.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
On September 26, 2007, defendant waived his right to a preliminary hearing and pled no contest to attempted murder with the allegation that he personally used a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). As part of the negotiated agreement, defendant agreed to a stipulated sentence of 17 years in state prison. The court dismissed the remaining charges of the complaint.
On October 25, 2007, defendant moved to withdraw his plea on the ground that his counsel was ineffective. Defendant subsequently retained counsel who argued that defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel and that he did not understand the case and entered the plea under duress. The deputy public defender who represented defendant during the plea proceedings filed a declaration averring that he explained the charges to defendant and the evidence against him, including that the victim identified him as the shooter. He further stated that defendant never expressed any lack of understanding of his defenses. At the hearing on the motion, defendant withdrew his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The trial court denied the motion.
On February 8, 2008, the court sentenced defendant to the midterm of seven years on the attempted murder count and a consecutive 10-year term on the firearm use enhancement for a total of 17 years in state prison. The court granted defendant custody credits of 363 days. The abstract of judgment incorrectly lists the enhancement as section 12022.5 rather than section 12022.53, subdivision (b). We will order the abstract of judgment amended to reflect the correct statutory section.
Defendant was represented by counsel. There was no error in the sentencing. This court has reviewed the entire record and there are no meritorious issues to be argued.
DISPOSITION
The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment listing the enhancement charged and pled to as section 12022.53, subdivision (b); the trial court is directed to forward a copy of the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
We concur: RUVOLO, P.J., REARDON, J.