IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Lassen)
August 16, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
KENDRICK BENCOMO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. CH026865)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hull , J.
P. v. Bencomo
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Defendant Kendrick Bencomo is a prisoner at High Desert State Prison. On February 11, 2009, defendant and another inmate were sent to a shower for a strip search. As the inmates removed their clothes, defendant was seen pulling a white object out of his shorts. An officer told defendant to throw down the object; defendant did not reply until the officer made three separate requests, and sprayed both inmates with pepper spray. Another correctional officer retrieved the object, a seven-inch long piece of metal, sharpened to a point with a paper sheath, and wrapped in white cloth.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of possession of a weapon by a state prisoner (Pen. Code, § 4502, subd. (a); further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code). The trial court sustained a strike allegation, sentenced defendant to four years in prison, imposed a $200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), and stayed a parole revocation fine of equal amount (§ 1202.45).
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.) 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.
There is an error in the abstract. The abstract states defendant was convicted by a plea when he was in fact convicted following a jury trial. We shall order an amended abstract reflecting that defendant was convicted following a jury trial.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment reflecting that defendant was convicted following a jury trial and to forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
We concur: BLEASE , Acting P. J. MAURO , J.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.