P. v. Wade
Filed 5/10/06 P. v. Wade CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. COURTNEY ANTWHON WADE, Defendant and Appellant. | C048745
(Super. Ct. No. 04F01334)
|
Defendant Courtney Antwhon Wade pleaded no contest to driving or taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)--count one) and receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a)[1]--count two), and pleaded guilty to resisting arrest, a misdemeanor (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)--count three). Defendant also admitted a prior conviction for taking or driving a vehicle (§ 666.5, subd. (a)), three prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), and a strike prior (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). Defendant entered his plea with the understanding that the trial court would impose a six-year prison term.
The court sentenced defendant to state prison for an aggregate term of six years: count one, the midterm of three years, doubled for the strike prior, and count three, time served. Count two was stayed pursuant to section 654, and the prior prison terms were stricken pursuant to section 1385.
Defendant appeals, contending remand for resentencing is required because the record on appeal fails to include the reporter's transcript of the sentencing hearing. Defendant does not contest his agreed-upon prison term of six years. He simply argues meaningful review of the restitution order and calculation of custody credits is impossible and violates his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of appellate counsel. We will remand for a new sentencing hearing on these two issues.
Section 1181, criterion 9, provides that an appellate court â€
