Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. CM027081
Butz, J.
This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts 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 of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant.
Having reviewed the record as we are required to do, we affirm the judgment but direct the trial court to correct an error on the amended abstract of judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.) The facts are taken from the probation report, which defendant stipulated could form the factual basis for his plea.
After being dropped off by her friends, the victim saw that the driver’s side door and the glove compartment of her mother’s car were open and “items appeared to be missing.” Seeing defendant Jon Gregory Davis walking away from the car, the victim followed him and “demanded him to stop.” She told defendant that the CD’s and headphones he was carrying belonged to her mother. He attempted to argue with the victim, but when she pointed out that her mother’s name was on the CD’s, defendant returned the items. The victim contacted the police and defendant was subsequently detained.
After defendant was detained, the victim identified him as “the person who was in possession of her mother’s belongings.” And when the victim informed the police officers that there was still jewelry missing from her mother’s car, the officers searched defendant, finding the missing jewelry in his pocket. Again, defendant unsuccessfully tried to argue the items were his.
The police officers then learned defendant was on parole, having been released from prison only four days prior. Defendant was arrested and ultimately charged with second degree burglary of a vehicle (Pen. Code, § 459) and receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)). The prosecutor also alleged nine prior prison terms pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b), and one prior strike conviction. Defendant pleaded no contest to the charge of second degree burglary of a vehicle and admitted one prior prison term. In exchange, the prosecutor dismissed the balance of the complaint with a Harvey waiver. Consistent with his plea, defendant was sentenced to four years in state prison.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754, 758.
Defendant appeals. His request for a certificate of probable cause was granted. (§ 1237.5.)
Our review of the record reveals an error on the amended abstract of judgment. Item 3. lists a one-year enhancement pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b) but reflects a total time imposed for enhancements as four years. We will direct the trial court to prepare a second amended abstract and change the total time imposed for enhancements to one year.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The trial court shall prepare a second amended abstract of judgment that corrects the total time imposed for enhancements from four years to one year in item 3. A certified copy of the second amended abstract shall be forwarded to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.
We concur: RAYE, Acting P.J., MORRISON, J.