P. v. Sandoval

Filed 10/11/06 P. v. Sandoval CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Gary B. Tranbarger, Judge. Affirmed.

Lise Breakey, under appoinment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

A jury convicted defendant of burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) and grand theft. (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a).) In bifurcated proceedings, the trial court found him guilty of

petty theft (Pen. Code, § 666) and with having suffered 6 prior convictions for which he served prison terms. (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b).) He was sentenced to prison for 7 years, four months.^[1]

Defendant appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.

We offered the defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and

he has done so. Defendant filed a thirty-seven page supplemental letter brief which was read and considered.

We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RAMIREZ

P.J.

We concur:

McKINSTER

J.

MILLER

J.

Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.

Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line attorney.

^[1] When the trial court sentenced defendant, it did not state orally for which conviction it was imposing sentence and for which it was staying sentence pursuant to Penal Code section 654. The court minutes and abstract of judgment, neither of which are signed or necessarily reviewed by the trial court, state that the court imposed sentence for the petty theft and stayed sentence for the burglary and the grand theft. However, in our experience, court minutes and abstracts of judgment are often incorrect (and require correcting by this court) Therefore, we hope that this is not the case here. In any event, and because the oral pronouncements of the trial court, as reported in the Reporters Transcript, take precedence over contradictory statements in the Clerks Transcript, the trial court would do well in the future to make clear on the record for which conviction(s) sentence is being imposed.