Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The People v. James Sterling Otis

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta)


February 8, 2012

THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
JAMES STERLING OTIS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

(Super. Ct. Nos. 10F5217, 11F315)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Raye , P. J.

P. v. Otis CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.*fn1 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 July 10, 2010, defendant James Sterling Otis was stopped by a police officer for riding his bicycle on the wrong side of the road. When the officer ran a wants and warrants check, he discovered defendant had an active parole warrant in Oregon. While handcuffing defendant, the officer found defendant was holding a bindle containing methamphetamine in his hand.

Defendant was charged in case No. 10F5217 with possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). It was also alleged defendant had a prior strike conviction and had served a prior prison term. (Pen. Code, §§ 1170.12, 667.5, subd. (b).) On September 17, 2010, defendant pleaded no contest to the substantive offense and admitted the prior strike conviction. In exchange for his plea, it was agreed he would receive a maximum sentence of 32 months in state prison. He was released on bail pending sentencing.

On January 15, 2011, defendant was detained for attempted shoplifting of several items of clothing from a J. C. Penney department store. Defendant reported he wanted to sell the items for Dilaudid (a controlled substance). Defendant initially provided a false name to the responding police officer.

Defendant was charged in case No. 11F315 with commercial burglary and providing false identification to a peace officer. (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 148.9, subd. (a).) It was also alleged defendant had a prior strike conviction, had served a prior prison term, and had committed the alleged offenses while released on bail. (Pen. Code, §§ 1170.12, 667.5, subd. (b), 12022.1.) On February 1, 2011, defendant pleaded no contest to second degree commercial burglary and admitted the prior strike conviction. In exchange for his plea, it was agreed he would receive a stipulated sentence of 32 months in state prison in case No. 11F315. It was also agreed that the agreed-upon lid of 32 months in case No. 10F5217 would instead be a stipulated sentence of 32 months, for a total term in both cases (Nos. 10F5217 and 11F315) of five years four months.

In accordance with his plea agreement, defendant was sentenced to five years four months in state prison. The trial court also ordered defendant to pay various fines and fees including a $1,000 restitution fine and a suspended $1,000 parole revocation fine. (Pen. Code, §§ 1202.4, 1202.45.) Defendant was awarded 164 actual days and 82 conduct days of custody credit.

Defendant appealed and obtained a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5.)

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. We do, however, order the trial court to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment.

At sentencing, the trial court ordered defendant to pay two $30 criminal conviction assessment fees, two $40 court security fees, a $38 crime prevention fine, and a $190 criminal laboratory fee. Those fines and fees are noted in the clerk's minutes, along with the breakdown of all the included assessments and corresponding statutory authority. The fines, fees, and assessments, along with corresponding statutory authority were not, however, included on the abstract of judgment as required. (People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200.) We shall direct the trial court to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment complying with High.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment setting forth the fines and fees imposed, as well as their statutory sources, and to forward a certified copy of the corrected abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

We concur: HULL , J. DUARTE , J.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.