P. v. Miller
Filed 6/27/06 P. v. Miller 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
(Yuba)
----
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DONALD DEE MILLER, JR., Defendant and Appellant. | C051376
(Super. Ct. Nos. CRF05-99 & CRF05-745)
|
In case No. CRF05-99, defendant Donald Dee Miller, Jr. entered a plea of no contest to an amended charge of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1); undesignated section references are to this code) in exchange for dismissal of a remaining count as well as the offense charged against codefendant Rhiannon Amber McDaniel (§ 32) and the prosecutor's agreement not to file any priors.
Defendant failed to appear for sentencing.
In case No. CRF05-745, defendant entered a plea of guilty to failure to appear (§ 1320, subd. (b)) in exchange for the prosecutor's agreement to strike an enhancement (§ 12022.1, subd. (a)) and the dismissal of two pending matters (case Nos. CRF05-321, CRF05-1307).
The court sentenced defendant to state prison for the upper term of four years for the assault offense (case No. CRF05-99) and a consecutive one-third the midterm or eight months for failure to appear (case No. CRF05-745). In each case, the court imposed a $200 restitution fine, a $200 parole revocation restitution fine and a $20 court security fee. In case No. CRF05-99, the court reserved jurisdiction over victim restitution. The court awarded 96 days of presentence custody credit.
Defendant appeals in both cases.
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.
We note that the abstract of judgment requires correction; it mislabels the offense in case No. CRF05-99. Defendant entered a plea of no contest to an amended charge of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury, not assault with a deadly weapon as originally charged.
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 a corrected abstract of judgment to reflect that defendant was convicted of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury in case No. CRF05-99 and to forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The judgment is affirmed.
NICHOLSON , J.
We concur:
SIMS , Acting P.J.
RAYE , J.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Apartment Manager Lawyers.
