P. v. Glenn

Filed 2/3/10 P. v. Glenn 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

(Trinity)

----

Having reviewed the record in this case as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436,[1] we affirm the judgment.

Defendant Larry Eugene Glenn molested Jane Doe No. 1 from the time she was 5 years old until she was 12 or 13 years old. He molested Jane Doe No. 2 from the time she was 7 years old until she was approximately 10 years old. He also molested Jane Doe No. 3 when she was approximately 9 years old.

Defendant pled guilty to the continuous sexual abuse of Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 (counts one and two) and to committing lewd and lascivious acts on Jane Doe No. 3 (count three) -- all victims having been under the age of 14 at the time of the offenses. In exchange for his plea, three additional counts concerning Jane Doe No. 3 were dismissed.

The trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term of 16 years on count one, a concurrent upper term of 16 years on count two, and a concurrent upper term of eight years on count three. Defendant was ordered to pay a $600 restitution fine and a $600 parole revocation fine. He was awarded 508 days of custody credit.

Defendant appeals. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.

Our review of the record reveals two clerical errors in the preparation of the abstract of judgment. First, although the trial court properly awarded 66 days of conduct credit pursuant to Penal Code section 2933.1, the abstract of judgment incorrectly reflects conduct credit was awarded pursuant to Penal Code section 4019. The appropriate box should be marked upon correction of the abstract.

Second, the box on line 12c of the abstract is marked, indicating that defendant was sentenced after probation revocation. It appears from the record, however, that defendant had no prior criminal history and that sentence was imposed at the initial sentencing hearing. The abstract should be corrected accordingly by marking box 12a.

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The trial court is directed to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect that conduct credits were awarded pursuant to Penal Code section 2933.1 and to reflect that sentence was imposed at the initial sentencing and to forward a certified copy of said abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The judgment is affirmed.

ROBIE , J.

We concur:

HULL, Acting P. J.

BUTZ , J.

Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

[1] Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 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.