IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte)
July 25, 2012
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
GARY DEAN GURNSEY, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. SCR85080)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Duarte , J.
P. v. Gurnsey 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Appointed counsel for defendant Gary Dean Gurnsey 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 order the abstract of judgment corrected, as we explain post.
On September 4, 2011, officers stopped and arrested defendant for driving under the influence (DUI) and other charges; he had a blood-alcohol content (BAC) of 0.12 percent and license that had been suspended due to a prior DUI.
Defendant pleaded no contest to driving with a BAC of 0.08 or greater (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (b)) and admitted three prior convictions for DUIs within the past 10 years (Veh. Code, § 23550), in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts and "other pending cases," and entry of a waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.
The trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term of three years of incarceration. Defendant appeals.
Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks us to 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 have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant. We have undertaken an examination of the entire record and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
We note an error of omission, however, in the abstract of judgment, which refers to a fine of $1,747 "as broken down on probation report." The abstract must separately reflect the fines, fees, and assessments imposed and include statutory authority for each. (People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200-1201.)
The trial court is directed to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment reflecting the statutory bases and amounts for all fines, fees, and assessments, and to forward a certified copy of the corrected abstract to the Butte County Sheriff's Department. The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: HULL , Acting P. J. ROBIE , J.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.