Opinion
C090577
07-01-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANGEL RIVERA, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 16FE013321)
Appointed counsel for defendant Angel Rivera filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) After reviewing the entire record, we affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant threatened and stabbed his two roommates multiple times with a knife; he then took a car belonging to one of his roommates and hit the other roommate with the car. He was charged with two counts of attempted murder (Pen. Code, § 664/187, subd. (a)—counts one & two), one count of carjacking (§ 215, subd. (a)—count three), and one count of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)—count four). It was further alleged that the attempted murder counts were committed willfully, deliberately and with premeditation (§ 664, subd. (a)) and that defendant personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). As to count one alone, it was alleged that defendant caused great bodily injury. (§ 12022.7, subd. (a).)
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
Defendant pleaded no contest to an amended count two, assault with a deadly weapon in violation of section 245, subdivision (a)(1); count three, carjacking with an added great bodily injury allegation; and count four, assault with a deadly weapon with a great bodily injury allegation, in exchange for a promised sentence of 15 years. The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 15 years in prison as follows: on count three, the upper term of nine years plus three years for the great bodily injury allegation; on count two, a consecutive one-third the middle term, or one year; and on count four, a consecutive one-third the middle term, or one year, plus one-third the great bodily injury enhancement or one year. The court granted 1,313 days of custody credit: 1,142 actual days and 171 conduct credits. The court imposed a restitution fine in the amount of $300 and imposed, but suspended, a probation revocation fine in an equal amount. Finally, the court ordered defendant to pay a $30 conviction assessment per count, a $40 court operations assessment per count, and a $10 theft fine.
Defendant filed a notice of appeal but did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief.
Our review of the record reveals that there is a clerical error in the abstract of judgment: the total amounts for the conviction assessment under Government Code section 70373, the court operations assessment under section 1465.8, and the theft fine under section 1202.5 are not listed. The court ordered that defendant pay a conviction assessment of $30 per count, for a total of $90; a court operations assessment of $40 per count, for a total of $120; and a $10 theft fine. This clerical error must be corrected. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [appellate courts may "correct clerical errors at any time" and order "correction of abstracts of judgment that did not accurately reflect the oral judgments of sentencing courts"].)
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to correct the clerical error in the abstract of judgment to reflect that defendant must pay a conviction assessment of $30 per count, for a total of $90; a court operations assessment of $40 per count, for a total of $120; and a $10 theft fine. A certified copy of the corrected abstract of judgment shall be forwarded to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
/s/_________
BLEASE, J. We concur: /s/_________
RAYE, P. J. /s/_________
MURRAY, J.