Filed 10/18/17 P. v. Salomon CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Yuba)
----
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JOSE JESUS SALOMON,
Defendant and Appellant.
| C084713
(Super. Ct. No. CRF1601677)
|
Appointed counsel for defendant Jose Jesus Salomon asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We note a clerical error in the abstract of judgment and will order a correction of the abstract. Finding no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
On January 1, 2015, defendant and his codefendant Angelo Gassett approached a woman and her boyfriend. Gassett pointed a gun at the woman and her boyfriend and said, “ ‘give me everything you have or I’ll pop you.’ ” Defendant stood in front of the victims and told them they would be okay if they gave everything to Gassett. Gassett continued to point the gun at the victims while defendant took one of their cell phones and a wallet. Defendant and Gassett then fled.
Law enforcement found defendant and Gassett by using a cell phone tracking device. When they detained defendant, he had a loaded nine-millimeter pistol concealed in his waistband.
The People charged defendant with numerous felonies and alleged several sentencing enhancements. Defendant pleaded no contest to robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and was granted five years of formal probation. The trial court awarded defendant a single day of custody credit and ordered him to pay several fines, including a $300 restitution fine. (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b).) The court also stayed a $300 probation revocation fine. (Pen. Code, § 1202.44.)
On June 24, 2016, defendant’s probation was transferred from Alameda County to Yuba County.
On February 1, 2017, the People filed a petition to revoke defendant’s probation. The People alleged defendant violated his probation by failing to report to his probation officer and failing to submit to “education, counseling, treatments or tests as directed by the Probation Officer. . . .” The court revoked his probation and a warrant for defendant’s arrest was issued. Defendant was returned to custody on April 10, 2017, and admitted violating his probation on April 17, 2017.
On May 15, 2017, the trial court found defendant failed to “do anything” to comply with the terms of his probation and was “a threat to society.” The court thus refused to reinstate probation and sentenced defendant to five years in state prison. The court affirmed the prior fines and fees, imposing the previously suspended probation revocation fine. The court suspended a $300 parole revocation fine and awarded defendant 465 days of custody credit. (Pen. Code, § 1202.45.)
DISCUSSION
Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and requests that we review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of the filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant.
We note a clerical error in the abstract of judgment. In paragraph four of the abstract the clerk, despite noting at the top of the abstract that defendant was sentenced to state prison, checked the box indicating defendant was sentenced “to county jail per PC 1170(h)(1) or (2).” Defendant was, in fact, sentenced to prison because he was convicted of robbery, a serious felony. (Pen. Code, § 1192.7, subd. (c)(19).) Accordingly, county jail was not an option. (Pen. Code, § 1170, subds. (a) & (h)(3).)
Having examined the record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is ordered to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment, reflecting defendant’s commitment to state prison. The court is further directed to forward a certified copy of the corrected abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
/s/
Blease, Acting P. J.
We concur:
/s/
Butz, J.
/s/
Murray, J.
