Opinion
C086099
06-04-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LEONARD BARRY THOMPSON, JR., 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 62151210B)
Appointed counsel for defendant Leonard Barry Thompson, Jr., has requested that we review the record for error pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We affirm and direct preparation of a corrected abstract of judgment as necessary.
BACKGROUND
A complaint charged defendant with felony receiving stolen property (count one; Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)), misdemeanor possession of methamphetamine (count two; Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), and misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia (count three; Health & Saf. Code, § 11364, subd. (a)), on or about March 8, 2017. The complaint further alleged that defendant had suffered one strike (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subd. (a)) and one prior prison term (id., § 667.5, subd. (b)).
Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
The record provided to us consists only of a clerk's transcript. --------
Defendant pleaded no contest to count one and admitted the strike in return for the dismissal of the balance of the complaint. The trial court sentenced him to 32 months in state prison (16 months, the low term, doubled for the strike). The court imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $300 suspended parole revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.45), a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8), and a $30 conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373).
Defendant filed a postsentence ex parte motion for disposition of fines pursuant to sections 1205, subdivision (a), and 2900.5, alleging that he was indigent. The trial court denied the motion. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal from the order denying his ex parte motion.
DISCUSSION
Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 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 have elapsed, and we have 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.
We note that the abstract of judgment reflects defendant's total time imposed as one year four months (rather than the two years eight months actually imposed per the minute order dated April 7, 2017). We have no reporter's transcript of the sentencing hearing. If the minute order accurately reflects defendant's plea and sentence, we direct preparation of a corrected abstract to accurately reflect defendant's sentence.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed. The trial court is directed to correct the abstract of judgment as necessary and forward a certified copy thereof to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
/s/_________
Duarte, J. We concur: /s/_________
Raye, P. J. /s/_________
Butz, J.