Filed 5/24/17 P. v. Quinney CA5










NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JOSEPH LAVERN QUINNEY,

Defendant and Appellant.


F072689

(Super. Ct. No. F15902626)


OPINION

THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Don Penner, Judge.
Patrick J. Hennessey, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Appointed counsel for defendant Joseph Laverne Quinney asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal.
(People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his 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 direct the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment and we affirm.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On April 27, 2015, defendant was arrested when officers found shotgun shells in his car and a shotgun in his trunk.
On August 31, 2015, defendant was convicted by no contest plea of possession of ammunition by a prohibited person (Pen. Code, § 30305, subd. (a)(1); count 2). He also admitted having suffered two prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). According to the plea agreement, defendant’s maximum term was four years.
On October 7, 2015, the trial court denied defendant’s motion to strike the prior strike convictions. The court sentenced defendant to 32 months in prison: the low term of 16 months, doubled pursuant to the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). The court awarded defendant 328 days of custody credit, ordered a $600 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $600 suspended parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45), a $40 court security fee (§ 1465.8), and a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373).
On November 9, 2015, defendant filed a notice of appeal.
We have reviewed the record and have discovered that the abstract of judgment is incorrect. The abstract inaccurately reflects a conviction on count 1 (being a felon in possession of a firearm; § 29800, subd. (a)(1)) rather than count 2 (possession of ammunition by a prohibited person; § 30305, subd. (a)(1)). In all other respects, the abstract is correct. We will direct the trial court to amend the abstract. We see no other arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The trial court is directed to amend the abstract of judgment to reflect a conviction for possession of ammunition by a prohibited person (Pen. Code, § 30305, subd. (a)(1); count 2) and to forward a certified copy of the amended abstract to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed.