People v. Ornellas

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SANDRA MICHELLE ORNELLAS…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Third District, Yolo

Date published: Dec 18, 2009

No. C061359 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2009)

Opinion

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SANDRA MICHELLE ORNELLAS, Defendant and Appellant. C061359 California Court of Appeal, Third District, Yolo December 18, 2009

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Super. Ct. No. CRF075872

RAYE, Acting P. J.

On September 30, 2007, defendant Sandra Michelle Ornellas shoplifted items worth $170.86 from Wal-Mart. She was caught as she left the store. When cited, she gave her sister’s name rather than her own. Defendant had a 2004 conviction for burglary and served time.

Defendant entered a plea of no contest to petty theft with a prior (Pen. Code, § 666) in exchange for dismissal of the remaining count and allegation and a stipulated state prison term of 16 months. The court sentenced defendant accordingly.

Defendant appeals. She did not seek or obtain a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5.)

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. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

However, we do find an error. Defendant’s name appears as Sandra Michelle Ornellas Gamino on the abstract of judgment, the transcripts filed on appeal, and counsel’s opening brief filed on defendant’s behalf. The plea form reflects that defendant’s name is Sandra Michelle Ornellas. Prior to defendant’s entering her plea, the court corrected defendant’s name, deleting Gamino, at defense counsel’s request for amendment. The first amended complaint was corrected accordingly. At sentencing, the judge referred to defendant as “Ornellas,” not Gamino. The notice of appeal reflects that defendant’s name is Sandra Ornellas. We will order the abstract of judgment be corrected to reflect defendant’s name as Sandra Michelle Ornellas.

DISPOSITION

The trial court is directed to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment reflecting defendant’s name as Sandra Michelle Ornellas and to forward a certified copy of the corrected abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: BUTZ, J., CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.