P. v. Martinez

Filed 9/27/06 P. v. Martinez CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

Defendant Laurie Elizabeth Martinez has filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court for an independent review of the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)

Defendant was charged in case No. SCR-33797 with forging a check (Pen. Code,[1] § 470, subd. (d)) (count I); possessing a forged check with intent to utter it (§ 475, subd. (a)) (count II); receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)) (count III); burglary (§ 459) (counts IV, V); grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a)) (count VI); and petty theft with a prior (§§ 484, subd. (a), 666) (count VII). All offenses were alleged to have occurred in 2004. The information included a prior prison allegation pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b).

Defendant pled guilty to count I and admitted one prior prison allegation pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b) in a negotiated disposition. Defendant agreed the court could consider the other counts, which were to be dismissed, in determining the appropriate sentence. The trial court imposed the upper term of three years for the forgery conviction and a one-year enhancement for the prior prison allegation, but suspended execution of the sentence and granted three years’ probation. Among the terms of probation was the requirement that defendant obey all laws.

On April 14, 2006, defendant was charged in case No. SCR-485599 with felony burglary of a commercial building. (§ 459.) The complaint included a prior prison allegation pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b). According to the presentence report, defendant took three pairs of jeans from a Sears store without paying for them on February 22, 2006.

Defendant pled guilty to a violation of section 459 in case No. SCR-485599. The plea agreement indicated that sentencing in the two cases would run concurrently. The court accepted defendant’s plea in case No. SCR-485599 and found her in violation of her probation in case No. SCR-33797. The court revoked probation, imposed the previously suspended four-year sentence in case No. SCR-33797, and added a consecutive sentence of eight months, or one-third the middle term, for the burglary charged in case No. SCR-485599. In doing so, the court reaffirmed the selection of the aggravated term because defendant’s prior convictions as an adult were numerous, she was on formal probation when the crime was committed, and her prior performance on formal probation and parole had been unsatisfactory.

The abstract of judgment was later corrected to reflect concurrent sentences in case Nos. SCR-33797 and SCR-485599.[2]

Defendant was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings. We see no error in the trial court’s rulings. There are no meritorious issues to be argued.

DISPOSITION

The clerk of the superior court is directed to correct the amended abstract of judgment by removing the reference to case No. SCR-486699 and replacing it with case No. SCR-485599. The clerk shall then forward a copy of the corrected abstract of judgment to the California Department of Corrections. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

________________________

RIVERA, J.

We concur:

___________________________

RUVOLO, P.J.

___________________________

REARDON, J.

Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line Lawyers.

[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

[2] The record on appeal originally contained only the abstract of judgment which reflected consecutive terms in the two cases. As noted above, defendant’s plea agreement included the understanding that the terms would instead run concurrently. On August 2, 2006, counsel for defendant informed us by letter that the trial court had issued an amended abstract of judgment imposing concurrent sentences. At our request, the superior court forwarded us a copy of the new abstract of judgment, which we treat as part of the record on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 32.1(a), (d).) The amended abstract of judgment erroneously refers to case No. SCR-485599 as case No. SCR-486699. We will order the abstract to be corrected.