P. v. Quenga
Filed 6/19/06 P. v. Quenga 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
(Butte)
----
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BILLY LEE QUENGA, Defendant and Appellant. | C050950
(Super. Ct. No. CM021383)
|
Billy Lee Quenga pled no contest to possession of methamphetamine (count 1) and possession of a blowgun or blowgun ammunition (count 2) and was placed on probation. Thereafter, the court sustained a petition to revoke probation, terminated probation, and imposed a midterm sentence of two years on count 1.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and requesting this court to review the record and determine whether there is any arguable issue 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.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
There is one clerical error requiring correction. The abstract of judgment erroneously recites that the criminal laboratory analysis fee was imposed pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11372.7 rather than section 11372.5. We will direct the superior court to correct the abstract. (People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471 [pronouncement of judgment judicial function; entry into abstract of judgment clerical function; any inconsistency presumed to be clerical error].)
DISPOSITION
The trial court is directed to correct the abstract of judgment to show that the criminal laboratory analysis fee was imposed pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11372.5. As modified, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare and file an amended abstract of judgment reflecting this change and to forward a certified copy thereof to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
ROBIE , J.
We concur:
MORRISON , Acting P.J.
BUTZ , J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Apartment Manager Lawyers.
