Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County Nos. FVA027742 & FNE004236, Keith D. Davis, Judge.
John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Pamela Ratner Sobeck, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and David Delgado-Rucci, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RICHLI, J.
I
INTRODUCTION
This appeal involves two cases: San Bernardino County case Nos. FNE004236 and FVA027742.
On February 22, 2006, in case No. FNE004236, defendant and appellant Dyrell Deshon Jones pled nolo contendere to one count of assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury under Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1). He also admitted that he personally inflicted great bodily injury under Penal Code section 12022.7, subdivision (a). Defendant was given a suspended sentence of five years and placed on probation.
On September 29, 2006, in case No. FVA027742, a felony complaint was filed charging defendant with one count each of transportation of cocaine base under Health and Safety Code section 11352, subdivision (a), and possession for sale of cocaine base under Health and Safety Code section 11351.5. On January 5, 2007, probation was revoked in case No. FNE004236 because of the filing of the complaint in case No. FVA027742.
On January 30, 2007, defendant pled guilty to transportation of cocaine case in case No. FVA027742. The plea agreement stated that the sentences in case Nos. FVA027742 and FNE004236 were to run concurrent. On April 4, 2007, the trial court imposed a three-year term in case No. FVA027742.
On April 23, 2007, the trial court found defendant’s admission in case No. FVA027742 constituted a violation of defendant’s probation in case No. FNE004236. The court imposed the five-year sentence that had previously been stayed. The court also imposed a restitution fine in the amount of $200 and a parole restitution fine in the same amount, which was stayed pending the successful completion of parole.
The abstracts of judgment for both cases do not state that the sentences are to be imposed concurrently. Certificates of probable cause for both cases were issued.
On appeal, defendant contends that the abstracts of judgment fail to properly reflect that the sentence in case No. FVA027742 was to be served concurrently with the sentence in case No. FNE004236. Respondent agrees with defendant. For the reasons set forth below, we shall modify the abstract of judgment in case No. FVA027742.
Because the facts underlying the charged offenses are not relevant to the sentencing issue raised in the appeal, we omit discussion of those facts.
II
ANALYSIS
The Abstract of Judgment in Case No. FVA027742 Should Be Corrected
Defendant contends, and the People agree, that the abstract of judgment in case No. FVA027742 should be amended to reflect that defendant’s sentence is to be served concurrently with the sentence in case No. FNE004236. We agree with both parties.
On March 22, 2006, in case No. FNE004236, defendant was sentenced to five years in state prison. The imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on probation. On January 30, 2007, defendant pled guilty in case No. FVA027742. The plea agreement stated that the sentence imposed in case No. FVA027742 would be served concurrently with his sentence in case No. FNE0004236.
At sentencing in case No. FVA027742, the trial court imposed the low term of three years. The trial court did not mention how the term was to run. Thereafter, when the trial court imposed defendant’s sentence in case No. FNE004236, no mention was made of the sentence in case No. FVA027742.
Based on the plea agreement, as summarized above, the abstract of judgment in case No. FVA027742 should be modified to reflect that the sentence is to be served concurrently with the sentence in case No. FNE004236.
III
DISPOSITION
The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment in case No. FVA027742, in accordance with this opinion, and to forward a corrected copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
We concur: HOLLENHORST, Acting P. J., KING, J.