IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yuba)
January 20, 2012
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
DONATO GARCIA, JR., DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. CRF11240)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Duarte , J.
P. v. Garcia
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
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.
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.*fn1
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.
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.
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.
We concur: BLEASE , Acting P. J. HULL , J.