Opinion
C082938
11-30-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARQUIS BROWN, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 16FE003756)
Appointed counsel for defendant Marquis Brown filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) After reviewing the entire record, we have found no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. However, we have found a sentencing error and a clerical error in the abstract of judgment that must be corrected. We will modify the judgment to correct the sentencing error and direct the trial court to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.
I. BACKGROUND
We provide the following brief description of the factual and procedural background of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On February 19, 2016, defendant assaulted G.B., a nonaccomplice, with a firearm, causing him to suffer great bodily injury.
On February 23, 2016, defendant was charged by felony complaint with attempted murder (Pen. Code, § 664/187, subd. (a)—count one), willful assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)—count two), and possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)—count three). As to count one, it was alleged that defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm proximately causing great bodily injury and death within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (d), personally and intentionally discharged a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (c), and personally used a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.5, subdivision (a) and section 12022.53 subdivision (b). As to count two, it was alleged that defendant personally used a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.5, subdivisions (a) and (d), and personally inflicted great bodily injury on a nonaccomplice within the meaning of section 12022.7, subdivision (a).
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
On June 15, 2016, defendant pleaded no contest to count two and admitted the sentence enhancement allegations alleged in connection with that count in exchange for a 16-year sentence. On July 13, 2016, the trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 16 years in prison, calculated as follows: the midterm of three years for count two, plus 10 years for personally using a firearm, plus three years for personally inflicting great bodily injury on a nonaccomplice. The trial court imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) and imposed but stayed a parole revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.45, subd. (a)) in the same amount.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
II. DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. However, we have found a sentencing error and a clerical error in the abstract of judgment that must be corrected.
At sentencing, the trial court failed to orally impose a $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373, subd. (a)(1)) or a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), as required by statute (People v. Sencion (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 480, 483-484). Therefore, we will modify the oral pronouncement of judgment to correct this error. However, because the abstract of judgment reflects that these assessments were imposed, it need not be amended in this regard.
Our review of the record discloses a clerical error in the abstract of judgment that requires correction. The abstract of judgment incorrectly states that defendant was convicted on June 16, 2016. The record reflects he entered his no contest plea on June 15, 2016. "A plea of guilty is the equivalent of a conviction and nothing remains to be done aside from pronouncing judgment and determining punishment." (People v. Hill (1974) 12 Cal.3d 731, 767, overruled on another ground in People v. De Vaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 896, fn. 5.) Accordingly, we will direct the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [appellate courts may correct clerical errors in an abstract of judgment].)
III. DISPOSITION
The oral pronouncement of judgment is modified to reflect that a $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373, subd. (a)(1)) and a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)) were imposed. As modified, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment reflecting that defendant was convicted on June 15, 2016, and forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
/S/_________
RENNER, J. We concur: /S/_________
HULL, Acting P. J. /S/_________
DUARTE, J.