Filed 4/17/17 P. v. White 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Sacramento)
----




THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

BARRY EMERY WHITE,

Defendant and Appellant.
C083434

(Super. Ct. No. 16FE005517)




Appointed counsel for defendant Barry Emery White has filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and 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.) After reviewing the entire record, we have identified a clerical error in the abstract of judgment. Finding no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm and direct the trial court to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On April 19, 2015, police officers from the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department were dispatched to defendant’s sister’s residence in response to a report of a threatening phone call. Defendant’s sister, Kamisha, told the officers she has legal custody of defendant’s child and defendant had threatened to kill her. Kamisha also told the officers defendant has been addicted to crack cocaine his entire life, and she was afraid of what he might do.
As part of the factual basis for his no contest pleas, defendant admitted he sent Kamisha around 100 threatening and harassing text messages, e-mails, and other communications from April 17, 2015 to January 7, 2016. He also admitted he repeatedly followed and harassed Kamisha during this time period and made a credible threat with the intent she be placed in reasonable fear for her safety and the safety of her immediate family. In one of his text messages, defendant threatened to kill Kamisha in front of her children. The text, which was sent on or around May 23, 2015, stated: “I’m going to hurt you, Kamisha. I told the D.A. that I’m about to shoot you in the face. I couldn’t see my child because I would murder you on sight. The next time you try to block me from my child I’m going to have you deceased for real. You disrespect me one more time, I’ll shoot you in the face in front of your kids. I’ll beat you down until my hands turn bloody. The family court didn’t realize I’ll kill them.”
In addition, defendant admitted he left Kamisha a voicemail wherein he threatened to pull the flesh off her face and “fuck [her] up.” The voicemail, which was left sometime between June 1, 2015 and July 1, 2015, stated: “[Y]ou think it’s funny trying to block my daughter from me for over a year, and then you’re going to call me a crack head. And then you play me like, uh, uh, uh, being threatened, and you were all scared trying to set me up. Let’s see how funny it is when half your face comes up missing, when I pull the flesh off your mother fucking face, so I’m going to fuck you up. I’m going to fuck you up.”
On September 19, 2016, defendant was charged with one count of stalking and 11 counts of making a criminal threat. Defendant pled no contest to the stalking count and to two counts of making a criminal threat in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining counts and a separate misdemeanor case and a stipulated sentence of three years eight months in prison. The trial court sentenced defendant consistent with the parties’ agreement. The court also ordered defendant to pay various fines and fees and issued a 10-year no-contact order pursuant to Penal Code section 646.9, subdivision (k).
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts and procedural history of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. However, we have found a clerical error in the abstract of judgment that must be corrected. The record discloses that count two was committed in 2015, but the abstract of judgment reflects count two was committed in 2016. The trial court has a duty to ensure a correct abstract is prepared. (See People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185.) Accordingly, we will direct the trial court to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The trial court shall prepare a corrected abstract of judgment reflecting that count two was committed in 2015. A certified copy of the corrected abstract of judgment shall be forwarded to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.



/s/ ,
Robie, J.



We concur:



/s/
Hull, Acting P. J.



/s/
Duarte, J.