PEOPLE v. GARCIA

No. C068609.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DONATO GARCIA, JR., Defendant and Appellant.

Court of Appeals of California, Third District, Yuba.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

DUARTE, J.

Appointed counsel for defendant Donato Garcia, Jr., has asked this court to review the record to determine whether there exist any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We shall affirm the judgment, but shall direct the trial court to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment reflecting the sentence actually imposed.

BACKGROUND

On April 21, 2011, a parole officer saw defendant smoking marijuana. A parole search revealed 3.26 grams of hashish in defendant's pocket. Defendant entered a no contest plea to possession of concentrated cannabis (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (a)) in exchange for a stipulated low term of 16 months in state prison to run concurrent, if legally possible, to the time he was serving on a parole violation.1

At sentencing, the court denied probation and imposed the stipulated low-term sentence of 16 months in state prison.

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. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel advised defendant of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days has elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant.

DISCUSSION

We note an error in preparation of the abstract of judgment. The abstract erroneously reflects a sentence of one year, six months in prison, rather than the 16-month sentence (one year, four months) imposed by the trial court. We shall order the abstract corrected. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185.)

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment reflecting the sentence actually imposed (16 months or one year, four months) and to forward a certified copy of the corrected abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

BLEASE, Acting P. J. and HULL, J., concurs.

FootNotes


1. It appears that the reference to a sentence "concurrent" to the parole violation "if legally possible" actually referred to the potential award of credits to defendant for his time in custody on the corresponding parole violation. Because the parole violation was based on conduct (possession of gang paraphernalia) beyond the current offense, the trial court properly denied defendant credit.

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases