Filed 5/14/18 P. v. Dixon 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Sacramento)
----




THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

WILLIAM DIXON,

Defendant and Appellant.


C084984

(Super. Ct. No. 16FE015204)


Appointed counsel for defendant William Dixon filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asked 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).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment. We shall order a corrected abstract of judgment to be prepared to correct a clerical error.
BACKGROUND
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.) The prosecutor recounted the factual basis for the plea during the plea hearing.
On August 7, 2016, defendant was pulled over while driving for not wearing a seatbelt. He did not have his license in his possession. When officers asked him to exit his vehicle, defendant sped away. He drove at a high rate of speed and evaded police while driving recklessly; numerous people were on a nearby sidewalk. He crashed a short distance away and fled on foot. He did not stop until officers threatened to taser him.
Defendant was charged in a felony complaint with evading a peace officer while driving in a reckless manner (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a), count one), possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1), count two), possession of ammunition by a felon (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1), count three), false representation of identity to a peace officer (§ 148.9, subd. (a), count four), resisting, delaying, or obstructing a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1), count five), and driving without a license (Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a), count six). It was alleged defendant committed count one while armed with a firearm (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)), and that he had two prior strike convictions. (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i) & 1170.12.)
Pursuant to section 1538.5, defendant moved to suppress, among other things, evidence found in the car he was driving and on his person as well as statements he made to police. The motion was later dropped in anticipation of a plea agreement.
Prior to the preliminary hearing, defendant agreed to plead no contest to evading a peace officer while driving in a reckless manner (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)), and admit a strike prior for a 2010 armed robbery conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i) & 1170.12) in exchange for a negotiated three-year prison term, doubled to six years for the strike, and dismissal of the remaining charges and allegations. Defendant waived a probation report and requested immediate sentencing.
Pursuant to the negotiated disposition, the court sentenced defendant to serve the specified term of three years, doubled to six years for the strike, and dismissed the remaining charges. The court awarded defendant 264 days of presentence credit plus 264 good time/work time credits for a total of 528 days of credit. (§ 4019.) The court imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $300 parole revocation restitution fine, stayed unless parole was revoked (§ 1202.45), a $30 court facility fee (Gov. Code, § 70373), and a $40 court security surcharge (§ 1465.8), and ordered defendant to comply with section 296. Defendant timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and requesting that this court review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his 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 have received no communication from defendant.
After examining the record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. We do note a clerical error in the abstract of judgment, however. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [“Courts may correct clerical errors at any time, and appellate courts . . . that have properly assumed jurisdiction of cases have ordered correction of abstracts of judgment that did not accurately reflect the oral judgments of sentencing courts”].) Item 4 on the abstract of judgment is not checked to show defendant was sentenced pursuant to section 667, subdivisions (b)-(i), or section 1170.12 for his strike prior. We shall therefore order the abstract of judgment to be corrected to accurately reflect the court’s oral pronouncement of judgment.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The clerk of the superior court is directed to correct the abstract of judgment to show defendant’s three-year term on count one was doubled to six years pursuant to Penal Code section 667, subdivisions (b)-(i), or Penal Code section 1170.12 for his strike prior. The court shall forward a certified copy of the corrected abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.



/s/
HOCH, J.



We concur:



/s/
RAYE, P. J.



/s/
BLEASE, J.