Opinion
C042604.
7-31-2003
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TRAVIS WADE STEWART, Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Travis Wade Stewart entered a negotiated plea of no contest to inflicting corporal injury on his spouse (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)) and making criminal threats ( § 422). In exchange for his plea, the remaining charges and enhancements were dismissed. The trial court denied defendants request for probation and sentenced him to the upper term of four years for inflicting corporal injury and stayed a three-year term for the criminal threats ( § 654). The trial court imposed a restitution fine of $ 800 ( § 1202.4, subd. (b)), and stayed an additional fine in the same amount pending successful completion of parole (§ 1202.45). The trial court also ordered defendant to submit samples pursuant to section 296. Defendant was given credit for 68 days of actual custody and 34 days of conduct credit ( § 4019), for a total of 102 days of credit.
Defendant appealed. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. ( § 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, 158 Cal. Rptr. 839, 600 P.2d 1071.) 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.
Although we note that the reporters transcript reflects the trial court may have misspoken during sentencing by indicating defendant was sentenced to the upper term of "five" years for inflicting corporal injury upon his spouse, no modification of the judgment is necessary. It is apparent from a review of the record as a whole that the trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term of four years as provided by section 273.5, subdivision (a), and as reflected in the clerks minute order and the abstract of judgment. (See People v. Malabag (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1419, 1422-1423 [When clerks transcript conflicts with reporters transcript, question of which controls determined by consideration of circumstances of case].)
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: BLEASE, Acting P.J., DAVIS, J. --------------- Notes: Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.