Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. Nos. 06F6163, 07F1662
BUTZ, J.
Pursuant to a plea bargain, defendant Gary Wayne Mitts pleaded guilty (case No. 06F6163) to possessing methamphetamine on or about May 26, 2006, and admitted two prior prison terms. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a); Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b).) In exchange, other allegations were dismissed and it was agreed that if his parole status permitted, he would be given Proposition 36 probation; otherwise he would receive a three-year prison sentence. On January 2, 2007, after a parole hold was lifted, probation was granted.
On February 27, 2007, a new complaint was filed (case No. 07F1662) alleging defendant possessed methamphetamine and a smoking device on or about February 23, 2007, and had prior convictions (later amended to prior prison terms). These and other charges were also the subject of petitions to revoke defendant’s probation. On March 8, 2007, defendant admitted violating his probation, pleaded guilty to one count of possessing methamphetamine, and admitted one prison term. His Proposition 36 probation was reinstated.
Probation revocation petitions were filed in both cases, alleging (as amended) that defendant tested positive for methamphetamine on August 10 and August 17, 2007. On October 17, 2007, defendant admitted these alleged probation violations.
On November 28, 2007, the court sentenced defendant. In case No. 06F6163, the trial court sentenced him to the upper term of three years, due to recidivism, plus two years for the prior prison terms. In case No. 07F1662, the trial court imposed a consecutive eight-month sentence, for an aggregate term of five years eight months in state prison. Execution of the prison sentence was suspended and defendant was committed to the California Rehabilitation Center (CRC).
Defendant was found unsuitable for treatment at CRC and the suspension of sentence was lifted. Defendant timely filed this appeal.
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 have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant.
We have discovered a minor sentencing error. In case No. 07F1662, defendant admitted only one of the prior prison terms alleged (as amended). (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b).) In light of the fact that two prison term enhancements were to be imposed in case No. 06F6163, the trial court determined to stay duplicative enhancements in case No. 07F1662. (Pen. Code, § 654.) But the trial court imposed and stayed two prison term enhancements in case No. 07F1662, although only one such enhancement had been admitted. This does not directly affect defendant’s sentence, but it requires correction, and the abstract should be amended to remove the second, stayed, prison term enhancement in case No. 07F1662.
In the interest of judicial economy, we will order this change to be implemented without requesting supplemental briefing. Any party aggrieved by the lack of briefing on this point may file a rehearing petition. (Gov. Code, § 68081.)
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The trial court is directed to prepare and forward to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation an amended abstract of judgment in conformity with this opinion. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
We concur: RAYE, Acting P. J., CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.