Opinion
F078673
09-30-2019
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOHN WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant.
Carla J. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. RF008043A)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Kenneth G. Pritchard, Judge. Carla J. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Detjen, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and DeSantos, J.
-ooOoo-
Appellant John Williams pled no contest to possession of ammunition by a prohibited person (Pen. Code, § 30305, subd. (a)(1)) and he admitted a prior prison term enhancement (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and allegations that he had a prior conviction within the meaning of the "Three Strikes" law (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we affirm.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On September 26, 2018, Ridgecrest police officers were dispatched to a residence regarding a person who was damaging property and refused to leave and found Williams there. Williams was on postrelease community supervision. The officers searched Williams and arrested him after finding several rounds of .40-caliber ammunition in his backpack.
On September 28, 2018, the Kern County District Attorney filed a complaint charging Williams with possession of ammunition by a prohibited person (count 1), misdemeanor vandalism (§ 594, subd. (b)(2)(A)/count 2), and five prior prison term enhancements.
On October 18, 2018, Williams entered his plea as noted above in exchange for a stipulated four-year prison term and the dismissal of the vandalism count and four prior prison term enhancements.
On November 20, 2018, defense counsel filed a Romero motion asking the court to strike Williams's prior strike conviction.
People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497. --------
On December 3, 2018, the court struck Williams's prior strike conviction and sentenced him to the stipulated four-year prison term, the aggravated term of three years on his possession of ammunition conviction and a one-year prior prison term enhancement.
On January 9, 2019, the trial court filed a handwritten appeal submitted by Williams.
Williams's appellate counsel has filed a brief that summarizes the facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Williams has not responded to this court's invitation to submit additional briefing. However, our review of the record disclosed two errors in the abstract of judgment. Although the court imposed the prior prison term enhancement Williams admitted, section 3 of Williams's abstract of judgment indicates that this enhancement was stayed. Additionally, the court awarded Williams 69 days of presentence actual custody credit and 68 days of presentence conduct credit for a total of 137 days of presentence custody credit. However, section 14 of Williams's abstract of judgment erroneously indicates the court awarded him 71 days of presentence actual custody credit and 70 days of presentence conduct credit for a total of 141 days of presentence custody credit. We will direct the trial court to issue an amended abstract of judgment that corrects these errors.
Further, following an independent review of the record, we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The trial court is directed to issue an amended abstract of judgment that does not indicate in section 3 that it stayed the prior prison term enhancement Williams admitted and which indicates in section 14 that Williams is entitled to 69 days of presentence actual custody credit and 68 days of presentence conduct credit for a total of 137 days of presentence custody credit. The trial court is further directed to forward a certified copy of the amended abstract of judgment to the appropriate authorities. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.