Opinion
C041952.
7-9-2003
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAOUL SALINAS PUENTE, Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Raoul Salinas Puente entered a negotiated plea of no contest to two counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and, in connection with one of the robberies, admitted personally inflicting great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)) in exchange for a sentencing lid of nine years. The remaining counts (two more counts of second degree robbery and one count of assault with a deadly weapon) (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 245, subd. (a)(1)) and allegation (street terrorism) (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) were dismissed with a waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754, 159 Cal. Rptr. 696, 602 P.2d 396.
The court sentenced defendant to state prison for an aggregate term of nine years (for one of the robberies, the upper term of five years plus a three-year enhancement and for the second robbery, a consecutive one-third the three-year midterm or one year).
Defendant appeals, contending the trial court imposed an unauthorized sentence when it imposed sentence on the second count of robbery. The Attorney General concedes that the trial court incorrectly pronounced judgment.
In imposing sentence on the subordinate count, the trial court stated:
"The defendant is sentenced to the Department of Corrections for the midterm of three years. All of the sentence for Count Two except one-third the midterm is to be stayed, which stay will become permanent upon his service of the sentence that has not been stayed. The portion not stayed in Count Two, one— third the midterm or one year, is ordered to run consecutive to the principal term."
Section 1170.1, subdivision (a), provides, in relevant part: "The subordinate term for each consecutive offense shall consist of one-third of the middle term of imprisonment prescribed for each other felony conviction for which a consecutive term of imprisonment is imposed . . . ." Section 1170.1 provides for a one-third the midterm for the subordinate term, not the full midterm with two-thirds stayed.
Citing California Rules of Court, rule 12(c), the Attorney General suggests that this court order the trial court to correct the reporters transcript. We reject the suggestion. "The settlement, augmentation, and correction process does not allow parties to create proceedings, make records, or litigate issues which they neglected to pursue earlier. [P] . . . Defendant is entitled to an appellate record that accurately reflects what was done and said in the trial court—not what he wishes had been done or said." (People v. Tuilaepa (1992) 4 Cal.4th 569, 585, 842 P.2d 1142.) The abstract of judgment correctly reflects that a consecutive one-third the midterm or one year was imposed for the subordinate count. There is no need to correct a verbal slip.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: NICHOLSON, J., and HULL, J.