Opinion
C082115
03-09-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHASE ALAN DOULPHUS, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. NCR88403)
This appeal comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).
On April 29, 2014, an information charged defendant Chase Alan Doulphus and two codefendants with the following offenses: murder (count 1; Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code); robbery (counts 2-4; § 211); assault with a firearm (counts 5-7; § 245, subd. (a)(2)); false imprisonment (counts 8-10; § 236); and transportation of marijuana for purposes of sale (count 11; Health & Saf. Code, § 11360, subd. (a)). As to counts 1 through 4, the information alleged that defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm resulting in great bodily injury or death in the commission of the offenses (§ 12202.53, subd. (d)); as to counts 5 through 10, the information alleged that he personally used a firearm in the commission of the offenses (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)).
On March 18, 2016, the information was amended to add count 12, voluntary manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (a)), and to replace the allegations of firearm use under section 12202.53, subdivision (d), as to counts 2 through 4 with allegations under section 12202.53, subdivision (c) (personally and intentionally discharging a firearm). Defendant then entered a plea of guilty to counts 2, 3, 4, and 12, and admitted the firearm use allegations as to counts 2 through 4, with all remaining charges and allegations dismissed.
Evidence at the preliminary hearing (stipulated to provide the factual basis for defendant's plea) showed that on October 3, 2013, defendant and the codefendants went to a marijuana farm in Tehama County, awoke three workers on the farm who slept there in a trailer, bound them with zip ties and duct tape, and loaded approximately 55 pounds of marijuana into the defendants' car. When one worker tried to escape, he was fatally shot; the other two victims identified defendant as one of the shooters.
The defendants' car later crashed after a high-speed chase. Defendant and one of the codefendants were detained at the scene; the other codefendant fled, but was apprehended. The stolen marijuana, a pistol, and ammunition, were found in or near the car. An AK-47 and matching ammunition were retrieved on or near the marijuana farm; the registered owner of the weapon told the police that one of the codefendants had lived with him, and after the codefendant moved out the weapon was missing.
On May 9, 2016, the trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate state prison term of 42 years four months, consisting of five years (the upper term) on count 2; 20 years consecutive for the firearm enhancement on that count; one year consecutive on count 3; one year consecutive on count 4; six years eight months for the firearm enhancements on counts 3 and 4; and two years consecutive on count 12. The court awarded defendant 1,092 days of presentence custody credit (950 actual days and 142 conduct days). The court imposed a $1,000 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $1,000 suspended parole revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.45), a $40 court security fee (§ 1465.8), and a $30 conviction fee (Gov. Code, § 70373). The court reserved jurisdiction over victim restitution in an amount to be determined.
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 elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
We must remand the matter to the trial court, however, because the abstract of judgment fails to reflect that the court reserved jurisdiction over victim restitution. The court is directed to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment so showing, and to furnish a certified copy of the corrected abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The matter is remanded to the trial court for the preparation of a corrected abstract of judgment as explained above.
HULL, J. We concur: RAYE, P. J. HOCH, J.