Filed 5/3/17 P. v. Anaya 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

PEDRO EUSEVIO ANAYA,

Defendant and Appellant.


E066660

(Super.Ct.No. FCH700066)

O P I N I O N


APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael A. Smith, Judge. Affirmed with directions.
Rex Adam Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, and A. Natasha Cortina and Annie Featherman Fraser, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant, Pedro Eusevio Anaya, appeals from an order denying his Proposition 47 petition (Pen. Code, § 1170.18, subd. (a)) for resentencing on his 2008 convictions for receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)). On appeal, defendant does not challenge the court’s denial of his petition but contends we must order the abstract of judgment corrected to accurately reflect his sentence. The People agree, as do we. We therefore affirm the order denying his petition and remand with directions to correct the abstract of judgment.
II. BACKGROUND
In January 2008, defendant pled guilty to one count of carjacking and four counts of receiving stolen property. (§§ 215, subd. (a), 496, subd. (a).) He also admitted to three prison priors. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).) According to the police reports forming the factual basis for defendant’s plea, he and another man committed a carjacking during which they also took from the victims two cellular phones, a digital camera, a Sony MP3 player, and a Seiko watch.
In March 2008, the court sentenced defendant to a total term of 14 years eight months in state prison, consisting of nine years for the carjacking count, three years for the prison priors, and eight months each for the four receiving stolen property counts.
In July 2015, defendant filed a “motion to reduce charge to misdemeanor,” using a superior court form for Proposition 47 petitions. His motion sought relief with respect to all four counts of receiving stolen property. At the hearing on the matter in August 2015, the prosecutor and defense counsel stipulated that the amounts of the stolen property in two counts exceeded $950, but the amounts in the other two counts were less than $950, rendering only two counts eligible for resentencing. The court therefore granted the petition with respect to two counts and denied it with respect to two counts. The court vacated defendant’s sentence on the two eligible counts and reduced them to misdemeanors, then resentenced him to 185 days of jail time on those misdemeanors, with full credit for time served. The court announced the previously imposed sentence on the remaining counts would then be 13 years four months in prison. The amended abstract of judgment erroneously reflects defendant’s total prison time as 13 years eight months.
Defendant filed another Proposition 47 petition in February 2016, apparently unaware that the court had already ruled on his earlier petition. Defense counsel appeared at a hearing on this second petition and agreed to take the matter off calendar and notify defendant of the earlier ruling. Counsel notified defendant by letter of the ruling granting in part and denying in part his first petition.
In June 2016, defendant filed a third petition for resentencing under Proposition 47. He argued the two remaining felony counts for receiving stolen property were eligible for resentencing because he “only remember[ed] a Seiko Watch and an MP3 Player and both items combined do not amount to $950.” The court denied this third petition, noting the issue he raised was resolved by stipulation in connection with his first petition. Defendant filed a notice of appeal from this denial of his third petition.
III. DISCUSSION
As noted, defendant’s only contention on appeal is that we should order the abstract of judgment corrected so that it accurately reflects his sentence of 13 years four months in prison. The People agree the abstract of judgment is incorrect.
At any time, we may correct clerical errors, including abstracts of judgment that do not accurately reflect the oral judgment of the sentencing court. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 186-187.) Accordingly, we shall order the abstract of judgment corrected.
IV. DISPOSITION
The order denying defendant’s petition for resentencing pursuant to Proposition 47 is affirmed. The trial court is directed to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect that defendant’s total sentence is 13 years four months in prison, and to forward the corrected abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

FIELDS
J.
We concur:

RAMIREZ
P. J.

MILLER
J.