P. v. Foy
Filed 1/13/09 P. v. Foy 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. STEVEN FOY, Defendant and Appellant. | C057629 (Super. Ct. No. 07F02515) |
Defendant Steven Foy pleaded no contest to one count of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211),[1]admitted a strike enhancement for a prior conviction of first degree burglary ( 459, 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12), and admitted he had violated his probation in the first degree burglary case. The robbery charge stemmed from an incident in which defendant hit the victim and took her cell phone as she was walking in a park.
In exchange for his plea, it was agreed that defendant would receive a state prison sentence of four years (the low term doubled) for the robbery offense and a consecutive term of one year four months for the probation case (No. 04F04477). In addition, two other counts of second degree robbery, alleged to have occurred on the same date against different victims, were dismissed with a Harvey waiver.[2] Defendant was sentenced in accord with this agreement.
Defendant appealed. The court denied defendants request for a certificate of probable cause.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, requesting the court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal.[3] 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 have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant.
We have undertaken an independent examination of the entire record in this matter and found no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. However, we note a clerical error on both the original and amended abstracts of judgment, which state the trial court ordered $304.34 in restitution to one of the victims, whereas the courts order was for $307.34. Accordingly, we shall direct the trial court to prepare a second amended abstract of judgment setting forth the correct amount of restitution.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare a second amended abstract of judgment reflecting the correct amount of restitution and to forward a certified copy thereof to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
BUTZ , J.
We concur:
SCOTLAND , P. J.
HULL, J.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
[2] See People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.
[3] Defendants custody credits were adjusted pursuant to a letter from his appellate counsel to the trial court.
