P. v. Fitzgerald

Filed 6/20/06 P. v. Fitzgerald CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Shasta)

----

After waiving his right to a jury trial, defendant Alan Dale Fitzgerald was convicted in a court trial of failure to register an address change. (Pen. Code, § 290, subd. (a)(1)(A); further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.) The court found true three strike allegations. (§ 1170.12.) Defendant's motion to dismiss two of the strike allegations was granted. (People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.) Defendant was sentenced to state prison for six years, awarded 300 days of custody credit and 150 days of conduct credit, and ordered to pay a $1,200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $1,200 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked (§ 1202.45), and a $20 court security fee (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)).

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 two minor errors on the abstract of judgment. First, in part 2, the boxes should be left blank because section 1170.12 is an alternative sentencing scheme, not an enhancement. Second, because defendant was sentenced pursuant to the section 1170.12 scheme â€