People v. Ruiz

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RUSBEL RAZO RUIZ, Defendant and…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Sixth District

Date published: Oct 25, 2007

No. H030329 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2007)

Opinion

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RUSBEL RAZO RUIZ, Defendant and Appellant. H030329 California Court of Appeal, Sixth District October 25, 2007

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Monterey County Super. Ct. No. SS053153

RUSHING, P.J.

Defendant, Rusbel Razo Ruiz appeals from a judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of attempted robbery (Pen. Code, § 664/211), and found a weapons allegation to be true. (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (b)(1).) Based on this conviction, defendant’s probation was revoked in another case arising from a 2002 conviction for possession of a controlled substance. (Health & Saf. Code § 11350.) After the trial court denied the defendant’s motion for new trial based on ineffective assistance of an interpreter, the court sentenced defendant to the midterm on both cases for a total of three years for the burglary and weapons charges and eight months for the possession charge, to be served consecutively. The defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Appellate counsel subsequently filed an amended notice of appeal.

Appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed and we have received no written argument from defendant.

Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal.

We have noted, however, that while the abstract of judgment properly lists the sentence imposed in the itemized portion of the abstract, the “total time” calculation incorrectly lists the total sentence as three years, instead of three years and eight months, the actual time imposed. We will therefore affirm the judgment with direction to the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment to correctly reflect the sentence imposed.

Disposition

The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to amend the abstract of judgment to correctly reflect the sentence imposed and forward a copy of the amended abstract to the department of corrections.

WE CONCUR: PREMO, J., ELIA, J.