Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. 06F00743
BLEASE, Acting P. J.
In December 2005, defendant Nathaniel Harris entered a food market, brandished a pistol at the cashier, demanded money, received approximately $500 from the cash register and left the store.
In January 2006, defendant entered a liquor store, brandished a pistol at the cashier, demanded money, received approximately $100 from the cash register and left the store. The cashier observed the license plate number of the getaway car. The car was traced to defendant, who was arrested at his residence.
A jury convicted defendant of two counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c); further statutory references are to the Penal Code; counts one & two) and found that he personally used a firearm in the commission of both counts (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). He was sentenced to state prison for 12 years, consisting of the low term of two years on count one plus 10 years for the firearm enhancement; a concurrent term was imposed on count two. Defendant was awarded 374 days of custody credit and 56 days of conduct credit; ordered to make restitution to his victims; and ordered to pay a $2,400 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $2,400 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked (§ 1202.45), a $40 court security fee (§ 1465.8), and classification and booking fees.
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. (People v. Wende (1979) 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.
Our review of the record discloses three sentencing errors that must be corrected. First, although it specified that count two and its enhancement were to run concurrent rather than consecutive, the trial court erroneously imposed a one-third middle term for count two and a one-third term for its enhancement, rather than full terms. Thus, the sentence for count two was one year and the sentence for its firearm enhancement was three year, four months. The reduced terms are unauthorized and must be modified to full concurrent terms.
Second, the abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect that count one is the principal term, not a consecutive full term. The “X” in the box for consecutive full term must be omitted.
Third, the abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect stayed and unstayed restitution fines of $2,400, not $3,400.
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 sentence on count two is modified to the low term of two years plus 10 years for the firearm enhancement, to be served concurrent with count one. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment, omitting the count one “X” for “consecutive full term” and specifying restitution fines of $2,400, and to forward a certified copy of the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
We concur: DAVIS, J., NICHOLSON, J.