Filed 7/18/17 P. v. Cingcon 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Sacramento)
----




THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DAVID RICHARD CINGCON,

Defendant and Appellant.
C083020

(Super. Ct. No. 15F00349)




Appointed counsel for defendant David Richard Cingcon has filed an opening brief asking us to review the record for error pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We modify the judgment to correct an error in the oral pronouncement of sentence, direct correction of typographical errors in the abstract of judgment, and affirm the judgment as modified.
BACKGROUND
On January 17, 2015, defendant texted Brad H., apologized for an earlier argument, and asked Brad to come to defendant’s residence. Brad, along with Suzanne Richardson, arrived at defendant’s home around 2:00 a.m. When they arrived, defendant was outside the house; he greeted Brad and acknowledged Suzanne. Brad and Suzanne went inside the house. Other people also were in the house, including defendant’s wife Pinky.
Brad and defendant began talking and walked outside onto the patio. There, defendant resurrected a complaint that money belonging to Pinky had gone missing from her jacket while it was inside Brad’s car. Brad explained, not for the first time, that the money was not in his car. Defendant, upset, went back inside the house and sat down in the kitchen. Meanwhile, Brad went out to his car to search again for Pinky’s money; he found nothing. Brad went back inside and told defendant the money was not in his car. Defendant insisted Brad return Pinky’s money; he called Brad a liar. Defendant left the room.
Defendant soon returned; he pressed a gun to the left side of Brad’s head, shot him, and dropped the gun. Brad lost consciousness. He fell on the ground, face up, blood flowing from his head.
Suzanne ran from the house and down the street to the home of Wendy Cordova. It was approximately 3:00 a.m. Suzanne asked for help; Wendy called the police. The police soon arrived at Wendy’s house. Suzanne told the officers about the shooting and took them to defendant’s home.
At defendant’s home, the officers heard Brad cry out for help. The police entered the home and found Brad lying on the floor, still bleeding from his head.
Later, in the hospital, Brad told police it was defendant who shot him in the head though he appeared confused about exactly what happened. As a result of the gun shot to his head, Brad suffered brain impairment, facial trauma, and a spinal cord injury that nearly paralyzed his arms. Brad’s leg movement was restricted, he lost the use of his arms and legs entirely for 30 days, and he was left with chronic nerve pain. At the time of trial he was in constant pain, the left side of his face was numb, and he still had not regained the full use of his hands. He also suffers from poor proprioception; proprioception is the ability to feel one’s own limbs and know their whereabouts in relation to the body.
A jury convicted defendant of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187/664), assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)), and possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)). The jury also found true various alleged firearm enhancements (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a)(1); 12022.53, subds. (b)-(d)) and two alleged great bodily injury enhancements (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)).
In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true the allegation defendant had three prior convictions.
The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 69 years to life. The court also awarded defendant 656 days of presentence custody credit and ordered him to pay various fines and fees.
Defendant appeals.
DISCUSSION
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, 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 have received no communication from defendant.
We have found an error in the judgment, however, that requires the judgment be modified. When ordering the fines and fees at sentencing, the trial court indicated it was ordering those fines and fees cataloged in the probation report at page 8 in paragraph Nos. 3 and 4. Paragraph No. 3 identifies a $10,000 parole revocation fine pursuant to section 1202.45. Paragraph No. 4 reads: “Defendant make restitution to Brad H. in the amount of $0.00, pursuant to Section 1202.4 of the Penal Code, collectible pursuant to Penal Code section 2085.5 (b); . . .”
The court did not identify paragraph No. 2 on page 8 of the probation report, which identifies the mandatory restitution fine. (§ 1202.4.) The abstract of judgment, however, reflects a $10,000 restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4. Restitution fines are mandatory. We thus modify the judgment to include a $10,000 restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4. The abstract of judgment is correct in this regard and need not be amended.
The abstract of judgment also indicates the trial court reserved jurisdiction over the issue of direct victim restitution. Article I, section 28, subdivision (b)(13)(B) of the California Constitution provides: “Restitution shall be ordered from the convicted wrongdoer in every case, regardless of the sentence or disposition imposed, in which a crime victim suffers a loss.” Victim restitution for economic loss is mandatory (§ 1202.4, subd. (a)(1)) and the court must order full victim restitution “in an amount established by court order, based on the amount of loss claimed by the victim . . . or any other showing to the court.” (§ 1202.4, subd. (f).) We thus modify the judgment to reserve jurisdiction over the amount of direct victim restitution owed to Brad H. Again, the abstract of judgment is correct in this regard and need not be amended.
In addition, the abstract incorrectly reflects the section 12022.53, subdivision (d) enhancement, which the jury found true, to be a section 12022.53, subdivision (e) enhancement. The trial court is directed to correct that error.
Finally, we note the abstract of judgment for an indeterminate term incorrectly reflects an indeterminate term of 69 years to life plus “an additional determinate term” The indeterminate term imposed by the trial court was only 60 years to life. The determinate term imposed was an additional nine years and is separately recorded in the abstract of judgment for the determinate term. The trial court is directed to correct the error in the abstract of judgment for an indeterminate term.
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 as modified. The trial court is directed to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment and to furnish a certified corrected abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.



RAYE , P. J.



We concur:



NICHOLSON , J.



HOCH , J.