Filed 9/8/17 P. v. Freeman 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Yolo)
----
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
DONALD FREEMAN,
Defendant and Appellant.
| C084166
(Super. Ct. No. CRF162258)
|
This is an appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We briefly recount the facts and procedural history in accordance with People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.
I. BACKGROUND
At about 4:20 p.m. on April 24, 2016, defendant Donald Freeman and two other men entered a grocery store together and each pushed a shopping cart to the liquor aisle. They placed multiple bottles of liquor into the respective shopping carts, and then split up, going down separate aisles, each with a cart. All three left the store without paying. Defendant was detained by a loss prevention officer. The two other men fled in a vehicle. The liquor in the three carts was worth $1,287.28.
In January 2017, after his motion to substitute counsel was denied, defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to grand theft of property exceeding $950 (Pen. Code, §§ 487, subd. (a), 484, subd. (a)—count 1) in exchange for a stipulated county prison sentence of three years, with a split determined by probation, and the dismissal of the remaining count (conspiracy to commit grand theft) and allegations (three prior prison terms).
After denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea, the court sentenced defendant to the upper term of three years, split into 548 days of custody and 547 days of mandatory supervision. The court awarded 131 actual days and 130 conduct days for a total of 261 days of presentence custody credit.
Defendant appeals. The trial court denied defendant’s request for a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5.)
II. DISCUSSION
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, supra, 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. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
We note an error in the abstract of judgment. Defendant entered a plea, but the box used to designate a jury trial is checked. We will order the abstract corrected accordingly.
III. DISPOSITION
The trial court is directed to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment to reflect that defendant entered a plea and to forward a certified copy of the corrected abstract to the appropriate parties. The judgment is affirmed.
/S/
RENNER, J.
We concur:
/S/
ROBIE, Acting P. J.
/S/
HOCH, J.
