P. v. Stith











Filed 3/20/17 P. v. Stith CA4/2






NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO



THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DANIEL RAYMOND STITH,

Defendant and Appellant.



E066874

(Super.Ct.No. FSB1503642)

OPINION


APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Harold T. Wilson, Jr., Judge. Affirmed with directions.
Susan L. Ferguson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Daniel Raymond Stith filed a notice of appeal challenging the validity of his plea. A trial court granted his request for certificate of probable cause, which stated that defendant’s plea was taken despite his lack of knowledge of the consequences of the plea. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant was charged by information with first degree burglary. (Pen. Code,[1] § 459, count 1), assault with intent to commit a felony on a victim under the age of 18 (§ 220, subd. (a)(2), count 2), attempted forcible rape (§§ 664, 261, subd. (a)(2), count 3), committing a lewd act upon a child (§ 288, subd. (c)(1), count 4), and assault to commit a felony, during the commission of a first degree burglary (§ 220, subd. (b), count 5). Subsequently, another count of committing a lewd act upon a child (§ 288, subd. (c)(1), count 6) was added orally. Defendant entered a plea agreement and pled no contest to counts 1, 4 and 6, in exchange for a state prison term of five years four months, and the dismissal of the remaining counts. The parties stipulated that there was a factual basis for the plea. Prior to the plea, the court questioned defendant and found that he understood the plea agreement, his constitutional rights and the associated punishments, and that he freely, voluntarily, and knowingly waived his rights.
Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his plea, alleging that he was misinformed and told he would face a life sentence if he did not plead guilty. The People filed an opposition to the motion and argued that defendant failed to show good cause to withdraw his plea. He was facing a life sentence, from which his attorney negotiated a sentence of five years four months. The court denied defendant’s motion. In accordance with the plea agreement, the court then sentenced him to the term of five year four months in state prison.
DISCUSSION
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, setting forth a statement of the case and one potential arguable issue: whether the court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea. Counsel has also requested this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
However, we note an apparent clerical error. Generally, a clerical error is one inadvertently made. (People v. Schultz (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 804, 808.) Clerical error can be made by a clerk, by counsel, or by the court itself. (Ibid. [judge misspoke].) A court “has the inherent power to correct clerical errors in its records so as to make these records reflect the true facts.” (In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal.3d 702, 705.)
The abstract of judgment filed on September 16, 2016, incorrectly states defendant’s surname as Smith instead of Stith. Accordingly, we shall direct the superior court clerk to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect defendant’s true name.
DISPOSITION
The superior court clerk is directed to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect defendant’s true name as Stith, rather than Smith. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS


HOLLENHORST
J.


We concur:


RAMIREZ
P. J.


McKINSTER
J.


Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.
Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com


[1] All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code.