Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County Nos. RIF130785 & RIF115888. Craig G. Riemer, Judge.
Leonard J. Klaif, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RAMIREZ P. J.
Defendant and appellant Billy Medina Gomez appeals from an order finding him in violation of his probation in case No. RIF115888, and from a jury conviction in case No. RIF130785.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In case No. RIF115888, defendant pled guilty on April 2, 2004, to spousal abuse (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)) and was granted three years’ probation. On September 14, 2005, the court found defendant in violation of his probation for failing to report to his probation officer and failure to attend domestic violence classes. Probation was reinstated but defendant was required to spend 240 days in jail.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
On June 14, 2006, a new felony complaint was filed against defendant in case No. RIF130785. At the same time and based on the same new allegations, a revocation petition was filed against defendant in case No. RIF115888. In counts 1 and 2 of the new felony complaint and revocation petition, defendant was charged with two separate counts of robbery against two different victims. (Pen. Code, § 211.) Defendant was also charged in count 3 with possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), and in count 4 with unlawfully resisting a police officer at the time of his arrest (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)). Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence, which was denied by the trial court.
The hearing to determine whether defendant violated his probation in case No. RIF11588 was held concurrently with a jury trial on the charges alleged in case No. RIF130785. The court found defendant guilty of the alleged probation violations, and the jury convicted defendant on all of the charges alleged in case No. RIF130785.
In case No. RIF115888, the trial court terminated defendant’s probation and sentenced him to one year in state prison to be served consecutive to the sentence imposed in case No. RIF130785. In case No. RIF130785, the court sentenced defendant to three years for each of the two alleged robberies to be served concurrently to one another. The court declared the methamphetamine possession offense to be a misdemeanor and imposed a concurrent term of 90 days. Finally, the court imposed a concurrent term of 90 days for the offense of resisting arrest. In sum, defendant is currently serving a total of four years in prison.
According to the reporter’s transcript of defendant’s sentencing hearing on January 25, 2008, the one-year term imposed in case No. RIF115888 was to be served consecutively to the term in case No. RIF130785. However, the court’s minute order dated January 25, 2008, for case No. RIF115888 incorrectly states, “Case to run concurrent to: RIF130785.” This minor discrepancy should be corrected by the clerk of the superior court.
DISCUSSION
On March 6, 2008, defendant filed notices of appeal in case Nos. RIF115888 and RIF130785. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Appointed counsel on appeal has filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth the facts and procedural history, raising no specific issues, and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record. On November 19, 2008, and again on December 8, 2008, we offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he failed to do. We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The superior court clerk is directed to correct the January 25, 2008, minute order to reflect that the one-year term imposed in case No. RIF115888 was to be served consecutively to the term in case No. RIF130785. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
We concur: RICHLI J., GAUT J.