P. v. Freeman
Filed 8/15/06 P. v. Freeman 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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. CURTIS LEE FREEMAN, Defendant and Appellant. |
C050587
(Super. Ct. No. 04F08895)
|
Defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422; undesignated section references are to the Penal Code) and admitted a strike prior (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and two prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)) in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts, with a Harvey[1] waiver, and allegations and a stipulated state prison sentence of 12 years eight months.
The court sentenced defendant to state prison accordingly, that is, the low term of 16 months, doubled for the strike prior, plus 10 years (five years for each prior). Adopting the fees and fines on specified pages in the probation report, the trial court imposed a $2,800 restitution fine, a $2,800 parole revocation restitution fine, a $20 court security fee, a $29.95 jail classification fee and a $178.96 main jail booking fee.
Defendant appeals. His request for a certificate of probable cause (§ 1237.5) was denied.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant.
We note several unforgivable errors in preparation of the abstract of judgment. Although not imposed by the trial court, the abstract reflects $42 per month in probation supervision costs and $358 for the cost of the probation report. Both costs should be deleted. The abstract fails to reflect that defendant was sentenced as a two-strike offender. The abstract incorrectly reflects that the trial court imposed the midterm rather than the low term for the criminal threats offense. Further, the abstract erroneously reflects a two-year term for grand theft in case No. 04F00701. In sentencing on the grand theft offense, the court ordered time served of 300 days and terminated probation. The probation officer had recommended a concurrent midterm of two years for the offense. The court stated on the record that it was not following probation's recommendation. Effectively, the trial court reduced the offense to a misdemeanor and sentenced defendant to time served. We will order the abstract corrected accordingly. We suggest that the trial judge have a heart-to-heart talk with his clerk about this unfortunate abstract.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The trial court is directed to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment, deleting $42 per month in probation supervision costs and $358 for the cost of the probation report, checking the box to reflect that defendant was sentenced as a two-strike offender, correcting the term designation from â€
