IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)
October 13, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
TIMOTHY LEE SMITH, JR., DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. 10F01948)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hoch , J.
P. v. Smith
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Having reviewed the record as required by Wende, we affirm the judgment. We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On the afternoon of March 22, 2010, Alfred Tabarez was riding a light rail train to meet his mother at the Social Security office on Folsom Boulevard in Sacramento. Defendant Timothy Lee Smith, Jr., was also on the train, sitting in a nearby seat facing Tabarez. Defendant followed Tabarez as he got off the train and began walking toward the Social Security office. Tabarez was listening to music on his cell phone. Defendant was walking behind Tabarez and talking on his cell phone.
As Tabarez reached the office parking lot, defendant asked to use his phone, claiming his battery had lost its charge. Tabarez allowed defendant to use his phone. Defendant completed his call and, as he handed the phone back, asked to use it again. Tabarez agreed. Defendant said he needed to walk up the street in order to get better directions. Tabarez walked up the street with defendant.
They turned down a side street, after which defendant pulled a gun out from behind his back and pointed it towards Tabarez's head and neck region. Tabarez described the gun as looking like a black metal revolver with a silencer. Defendant told Tabarez, "You . . . can fight for your phone or you can leave with your life." He also told Tabarez he worked at a gun range and knew how to shoot guns. Tabarez told defendant he could have the phone and quickly walked away.
Tabarez ran from the parking lot to the Social Security office, where his mother called 911. Tabarez described defendant, his clothing, and his backpack to the dispatcher.
Police officers located defendant about a mile and a half from the Social Security office, in an open field near Oki Park. As one of the officers approached, defendant dropped something and began to walk away. When subsequently questioned, defendant showed the officer where he had dropped the item -- which was Tabarez's cell phone. Defendant had changed shirts but the shirt described by Tabarez was in his backpack. Tabarez was brought to the area where he positively identified both defendant and his stolen cell phone. Officers searched but were unable to locate a gun.
Defendant testified at trial and admitted he committed the robbery. He claimed, however, that although he had told Tabarez he had a gun, he did not really have one.
The jury found defendant guilty of robbery and assault with a firearm and found defendant personally used a firearm in committing each offense. (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 245, subd. (a)(2), 12022.53, subds. (a) & (b).) The trial court sentenced him to the lower term of two years for robbery, plus 10 years for the attendant firearm enhancement. Sentence for the assault and its attendant firearm enhancement was stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654. The trial court also imposed a $200 restitution fine and suspended a parole revocation fine in the same amount. Defendant was awarded 243 actual days and 36 conduct days, for a total of 279 days of presentence custody credit. (Pen. Code, § 2933.1.)
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to 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 elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant.
Our review of the record reveals the omission of three fees from the abstract of judgment. The trial court imposed a $10 crime prevention program fee (Pen. Code, § 1202.5), a $40 court security surcharge fee (Pen. Code, § 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), and a $30 court facility fee (Gov. Code, § 70373). We shall direct the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect these fees. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185.) We note one additional error in the preparation of the abstract of judgment. The abstract fails to reflect that conduct credits were awarded pursuant to section 2933.1. There is a box to check for this purpose. We will order the abstract corrected accordingly.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no other arguable error.
The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment reflecting the imposition of the $10 crime prevention program fee, $40 court security surcharge fee, the $30 court facility fee, and that conduct credits were awarded pursuant to Penal Code section 2933.1 and forward a certified copy of the corrected abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
We concur: RAYE , P. J. BUTZ , J.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.