Filed 4/9/18 P. v. Gibbens 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Shasta)
----




THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

STEVEN RAY GIBBENS,

Defendant and Appellant.
C085184

(Super. Ct. Nos.
17F1532, 17F796)



Appointed counsel for defendant Steven Ray Gibbens filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the underlying cases 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 (Wende).) After reviewing the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. However, we have found clerical errors in the sentencing minute order and abstract of judgment that must be corrected. We will direct the trial court to correct the clerical errors and affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the factual and procedural background of the underlying cases. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
1. Case No. 17F1532
On the evening of January 25, 2017, Martin Flores-Hernandez went to a bar in Redding. He left around 2:00 a.m. As he was about to call a cab, a man holding a golf club and wearing a camouflage jacket, later identified as defendant, grabbed his cell phone out of his hand. Defendant demanded $30 for the return of the phone. When Flores-Hernandez indicated he did not have any cash, defendant walked away with the phone. Flores-Hernandez followed defendant. As he was doing so, defendant called him a “wetback.”
After the two men entered a dark alleyway, defendant “pushed” Flores-Hernandez away from him with the golf club. Defendant also pulled out a fixed-blade “Rambo” knife and showed it to Flores-Hernandez. When Flores-Hernandez tried to grab his phone out of defendant’s hand, defendant became enraged and told Flores-Hernandez that he was “going to rob [his] ass.” Defendant then repeatedly punched Flores-Hernandez. As defendant was doing so, Flores-Hernandez heard two people say, “That’s enough, Steven. Leave him alone.” In response, defendant stopped. Prior to leaving the area, defendant took Flores-Hernandez’s wallet, watch, and keys.
Following this incident, Flores-Hernandez was taken to the hospital where he was treated for injuries, including cuts on his face and a painful headache. He was released around 5:00 a.m.
Around 9:30 or 10:00 a.m., Flores-Hernandez returned to the area where he had been robbed. As he was looking for the items that defendant had taken, he saw defendant coming out of a tent in a nearby field. He called 911 shortly thereafter.
When officers arrived, Flores-Hernandez identified defendant as the person who had robbed him. During a search of defendant’s campsite, officers found a camouflage jacket that contained Flores-Hernandez’s keys.
2. Case No. 17F796
In February 2017, defendant and his girlfriend, E. B., were transients living together in a tent. On February 4, 2017, defendant straddled her while she was on the ground, slapped her in the face, and strangled her until she could no longer breathe. The following day, defendant threw a flashlight at E.B. during an argument, causing a cut to the top of her head.
B. Procedural Background
After a jury trial in case No. 17F1532, defendant was found guilty of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)). Thereafter, pursuant to a negotiated disposition, he entered a no contest plea in case No. 17F796 to willful infliction of corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition upon a cohabitant (§ 273.5, subd. (a)). The remaining counts in case No. 17F796—willful infliction of corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition upon a cohabitant (§ 273.5, subd. (a)), assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), and false imprisonment by violence (§§ 236 & 237)—were dismissed with a Harvey waiver.
The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of six years in state prison. In case No. 17F1532, the court imposed the upper term of five years on the robbery offense, plus a consecutive one-year term for the assault offense. In case No. 17F796, the court imposed a concurrent midterm sentence of three years on the corporal injury offense. The court ordered defendant to pay various fines and fees as well as victim restitution in the amount of $3,415 to Flores-Hernandez. The court also issued a protective order as to E.B.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets 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. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 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 clerical errors in the sentencing minute order and abstract of judgment that must be corrected.
The abstract of judgment and sentencing minute order reflect that the trial court issued a protective order as to Flores-Hernandez. However, the trial court did not issue such an order.
The abstract of judgment also identifies the wrong statutory code with respect to several penalty assessments added to the local crime prevention program fine. (§ 1202.5, subd. (b)(1).) The abstract of judgment breaks down the components of this fine as follows: “$10.00 per PC § 1202.5, $10.00 per PC § 1464, $1.00 per GC § 76104.6, $4.00 per PC § 76104.7, $5.00 per PC § 70372(a)(1), $7.00 per PC § 76000(a)(1), $2.00 per PC § 1465.7.” The abstract’s references to “PC” (i.e., Penal Code) with respect to the penalty assessments imposed pursuant to “§ 76104.7,” “§ 70372(a)(1),” and “§ 76000(a)(1)” are incorrect. The abstract should reflect that these assessments were imposed under the Government Code. Because the sentencing minute order does not contain theses errors, it need not be corrected in this regard.
Under our power to order the correction of a clerical error in the record at any time (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185), we shall direct the trial court to make the necessary corrections to the errors identified in this opinion.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The trial court shall correct the errors identified in this opinion and prepare a corrected abstract of judgment and sentencing minute order. The court shall forward a certified copy of the corrected abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.


BUTZ , Acting P. J.



We concur:



HOCH , J.



RENNER , J.