Opinion
B233617
10-31-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LOUIS M. DUHON, Defendant and Appellant.
Ann Krausz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA379832)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Rand S. Rubin, Judge. Affirmed as modified.
Ann Krausz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Louis M. Duhon was charged by information with one count of petty theft with three priors (Pen. Code, § 666), as well as prior offense allegations (Pen. Code, §§ 667.5, subd. (b), and 1203, subd. (e)(4).) Defendant entered a no contest plea, admitting his prior enhancements and theft-related convictions, and now timely appeals postplea matters not requiring a certificate of probable cause. We appointed appellate counsel to represent him. Appointed counsel filed a brief in which no issues were raised. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) The brief included a declaration that counsel reviewed the record and sent a letter to defendant explaining her evaluation of the record. Counsel further declared that she advised defendant of his right, under Wende, to submit a supplemental brief. Defendant did not file a supplemental brief with this court.
The factual basis for the plea is as follows (as established at the preliminary hearing): On January 7, 2011, at a Macy's department store in Los Angeles County, loss prevention officer Michelle Tejado observed defendant take a fragrance set, place it in a bag he pulled out of a trashcan, and then leave the store without paying. She detained him, and called the police. Los Angeles Police Officer Carlos Chavez responded to the call, and defendant was arrested. Defendant has three prior theft-related convictions, including one for larceny (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)) and two for burglary (Pen. Code, § 459). He also has prior felony convictions for assault (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) and petty theft with a prior (Pen. Code, § 666).
There were some irregularities in the court's minutes and abstract of judgment which were addressed in the trial court. The reporter's transcript reflects a sentence of three years (the mid-term of two years for the Penal Code section 666 conviction, and a one-year enhancement under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b)), and 160 total custody credits (consisting of 80 actual and 80 good time/work time credits). Nevertheless, the trial court's March 28, 2011 minute order and April 1, 2011 abstract of judgment erroneously reflected a four-year sentence. On April 19, 2011, the court's minutes were corrected nunc pro tunc to show the correct term of three years, and an amended abstract of judgment was issued that same day. On July 20, 2011, the court's minutes were again corrected to increase defendant's custody credits, for a total of 162 custody credits (consisting of 81 actual and 81 good time/work time credits). No amended abstract of judgment reflecting the changed custody credits appears in the appellate record, and no request to augment the record to include the trial court's corrected minutes (concerning the custody credit issue) has been made, although appellate counsel transmitted a copy of the minute order to this court. We augment the record on our own motion to include the July 20, 2011 minute order. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.155.) Therefore, the abstract of judgment should reflect the following: A final sentence of three years in prison, consisting of the mid-term of two years for the Penal Code section 666 conviction, with a one-year enhancement under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b), and a total of 162 days of custody credits, consisting of 81 days of actual custody credits and 81 days of good time/work time credits. We direct the trial court to transmit an amended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections. (See People v. Wrice (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 767, 773.)
We have examined the entire record, consisting of one volume of a clerk's transcript and one volume of a reporter's transcript, and are satisfied that appointed counsel fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable appellate issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) We therefore affirm the judgment below, as modified.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed, as modified. The superior court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment and forward a certified copy of the same to the Department of Corrections.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
GRIMES, J. WE CONCUR:
BIGELOW, P. J.
RUBIN, J.