Opinion
B159754.
7-24-2003
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. IRENE DIAZ, Defendant and Appellant.
Paul F. De Meester, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Irene Diaz appeals from the judgment entered after a jury found her guilty of second degree robbery and possession of cocaine. (Pen. Code, § 211; Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a).) In a separate proceeding, she admitted that she had served one prior prison term within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). The trial court sentenced her to four years in state prison, consisting of three years for the robbery count and one year for the prison prior. The court imposed a concurrent sentence of two years on the drug count.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant for this appeal. After reviewing the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and requesting this court to independently examine the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 158 Cal. Rptr. 839, 600 P.2d 1071.
On March 10, 2003, we advised appellant that she had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that she wished to raise on appeal. We subsequently extended the due date for her response to May 7, 2003. To date, we have not received a response from appellant.
We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellants attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
We note that the abstract of judgment contains a clerical error in that it states that appellant was convicted in count 3 of violating Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a). The information was amended on the first day of trial to provide that appellant was charged in count 3 with violating Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a), and the jury found her guilty of violating that statute. The clerks minute entries for June 19, 2002, contain the same error. Consequently, we allowed the parties to and including July 21, 2003, to show cause why this court should not correct the clerical error in the clerks minutes and the abstract of judgment. To date, we have received no response from either party.
Accordingly, we direct the clerk of the superior court to modify the clerks minutes of June 19, 2002, to reflect that appellant was convicted of violating Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a). The clerk of the superior court is ordered to amend the abstract of judgment as well and forward a corrected copy to the Department of Corrections. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
We concur: YEGAN, Acting P.J., PERREN, J.