P. v. Oropeza
Filed 5/1/06 P. v. Oropeza CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL DON OROPEZA, Defendant and Appellant. | 2d Crim. No. B185342 (Super. Ct. No. F364880) (San Luis Obispo County)
|
Michael Don Oropeza appeals from a judgment sentencing him to a stipulated term of seven years in prison after he pled guilty to one count of transporting heroin and admitted a prior drug conviction. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11352, subd. (a), 11370.2, subd. (a).) We appointed counsel to represent him in this appeal. After reviewing the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We advised Oropeza that he had 30 days in which to submit a written brief or letter stating any contentions or arguments he wished us to consider. No letter or brief has been filed.
We have examined the record and are satisfied that appointed appellate counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist that would benefit Oropeza on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.) We note that the abstract of judgment describes a three-year enhancement under Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (a) as one imposed under Penal Code section 1203.07, subdivision (a)(3), a statute which refers to probation ineligibility rather than an enhancement provision. Though this does not affect Oropeza's sentence, it should be corrected to avoid confusion.[1]
The superior court shall modify the abstract of judgment to reflect that the three-year enhancement was imposed pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (a). As so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
COFFEE, J.
We concur:
GILBERT, P.J.
YEGAN, J.
Michael L. Duffy, Judge
Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo
______________________________
Michael Don Oropeza, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Apartment Manager Lawyers.
[1] The same prior conviction was alleged as the basis for a three-year enhancement under Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, a restriction on probation eligibility under Penal Code section 1203.07, and a fine under section 11352.5, subdivision (c). At the change of plea hearing, Oropeza admitted the prior conviction and acknowledged that he would receive a three-year enhancement as a result, which demonstrates that the admission was of the enhancement under Health and Safety Code section 11370.2.
