IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Modoc)
September 20, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
ULISSES PEREZ GOMEZ, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. F-08-054)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Nicholson , Acting P. J.
P. v. Gomez
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
In December 2007, some Norteno gang members assaulted a friend of defendant Ulisses Perez Gomez.*fn1 After defendant discussed the incident with friends, the group decided to "shoot up" the home of some Norten gang members. Around midnight, defendant and others shot at a home in Newell. The occupants of the home were not associated with any gang and were not injured. However, the bullets caused property damage and nearly hit some of the occupants.
Defendant pleaded no contest to discharge of a firearm at an inhabited dwelling. (Pen. Code, § 246.)*fn2 In exchange, eight related counts and associated enhancing allegations were dismissed.
Defendant was sentenced to state prison for three years. In addition, he was awarded 27 days' custody credit and 10 days' conduct credit, and was ordered to pay a $220 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $220 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked (§ 1202.45), and a $40 court security fee (§ 1465.8).*fn3
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.
Our review of the record discloses that the abstract of judgment must be corrected to list, in part 9, the "Total Time Imposed Excluding County Jail Term" as three years.
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 correct the abstract of judgment to show the total time imposed, and to forward a certified copy of the corrected abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
We concur: HULL , J. HOCH , J.