P. v. Backman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 6/12/13  P. v. Backman 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.

 

 

 

IN THE COURT OF
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE
DISTRICT

(Yolo)

----

 

 

 
>

THE PEOPLE,                           Plaintiff and Respondent,               v.   EARL ROBERT BACKMAN,                           Defendant and Appellant.

C072732   (Super. Ct. No. CRF115374)

 

 

 

            In November
2011, defendant Earl Robert Backman argued with his nephew about the possible
theft of a car belonging to defendant’s father. 
Defendant retrieved a shotgun and fired it at the nephew, striking him
in the leg.href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1"
title="">[1] 

 

 

 

            Defendant
pled no contest to assault with a firearm
and admitted that he personally used a firearm in the commission of the offense.  In exchange, two related counts and various
enhancing allegations were dismissed.

            Defendant
was sentenced to prison for a stipulated term of 14 years, awarded 321 days’
custody credit and 48 days’ conduct credit, and ordered to pay a $240
restitution fine, a $240 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked, a
$40 court operations fee, and a $30 court facilities assessment. 

            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
discloses three minor errors on the abstract of judgment.  First, in part 5, the $40 court operations
fee (formerly court security fee) is listed as $30.  Second, in part 5, the space for the $30
court facilities assessment (criminal conviction assessment) has been left
blank.  Third, in part 12, the “4019” box
should not be checked and the “2933.1” box should be checked.  We direct the trial court to correct the
abstract accordingly.

            Having
undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that
would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

 

 

 

 

 

DISPOSITION

            The
judgment is affirmed.  The trial court is
directed to correct the abstract of judgment and to forward a certified copy to
the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation.

 

 

 

                                                                                       ROBIE          , J.

 

 

 

We concur:

 

 

 

          RAYE           , P. J.

 

 

 

          HOCH           , J.