P. v. Houston
Filed 3/16/07 P. v. Houston 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Shasta)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TERRY QUINN HOUSTON, Defendant and Appellant. | C052745 (Super. Ct. No. 04F5262) |
A jury convicted defendant Terry Quinn Houston of four counts of second degree commercial burglary (Pen. Code, 459) and four counts of forgery (Pen. Code, 470, subd. (d)). Defendant admitted one strike and two prior prison terms. The trial court sentenced defendant to seven years in prison, imposed a $1,400 restitution fine (Pen. Code, 1202.4, subd. (b)), stayed a $1,400 parole revocation fine (Pen. Code, 1202.45), imposed a theft fine of $31.50 (Pen. Code, 1202.5), ordered defendant to pay $413 in restitution to the victims (Pen. Code, 1202.4, subd. (f)), and imposed a $160 court security fee (Pen. Code, 1465.8).
On April 7, 2004, defendant made purchases between $21 and $35 at three separate businesses in Redding, California and paid for each purchase with a counterfeit $100 travelers check. Two of the clerks identified defendant as the man who passed the counterfeit travelers checks. On April 15, 2004, he made an $11 purchase at another business in Redding, which he also paid with a counterfeit $100 travelers check.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, requesting the court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. 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.
We have found an error in the abstract. The abstract lists the date of conviction for counts six through eight as May 10, 2006, when defendant was convicted on January 10, 2006. We will direct the trial court to enter the proper dates for these convictions in the amended abstract.
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 trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment to reflect that defendant was convicted on counts six through eight on January 10, 2006. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.
We concur:
BLEASE , Acting P.J.
MORRISON , J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.
