Filed 5/18/17 P. v. Schmidt 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Yolo)
----




THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

STEVEN PAUL SCHMIDT,

Defendant and Appellant.
C081902

(Super. Ct. No. CRF14349)




Defendant Steven Paul Schmidt has asked us to correct a clerical order in his abstract of judgment, a request with which the People agree. We shall order the correction and also direct the trial court to correct its internal records.
BACKGROUND
Defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378; Count 2) and possession of a forged driver’s license or identification card (Pen. Code, § 470b; Count 7) and admitted a prior drug conviction (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (c); “Count Enhancement” 2b). In exchange for defendant’s plea and admission, the parties agreed to a six-year eight-month sentence, split between custody and supervision, and the dismissal of the remaining counts and allegations.
The trial court sentenced defendant as agreed. Defendant appeals, contending only that the abstract of judgment and sentencing minute order require correction for clerical error. The People concede the error, and we agree.
In view of the contention raised on appeal and the People’s concession, a recitation of the underlying facts is unnecessary. The abstract of judgment and sentencing minute order (county prison minute order) reflect an obvious clerical error. They incorrectly reflect that defendant was convicted of a firearm enhancement (“Count Enhancement” 2a) pursuant to Penal Code section 12022, subdivision (c). In truth, defendant was convicted of a different enhancement--a three-year enhancement for a prior drug conviction pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (c) (“Count Enhancement” 2b).
The People also note that the abstract erroneously lists the counts of conviction as “2A” and “7A”--the counts as charged were “2” and “7.”
We will order the abstract of judgment corrected accordingly, and also direct the trial court to correct any errors contained in its internal records, including the minute orders. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185.)
DISPOSITION
The trial court is directed to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment as detailed above and forward a certified copy of the corrected abstract to the appropriate authorities. The trial court should also correct its internal records to ensure that they accurately reflect all counts and enhancements of defendant’s conviction. The judgment is affirmed.




/s/
Duarte, J.



We concur:



/s/
Hull, Acting P. J.




/s/
Robie, J.