P. v. Murillo
Filed 2/20/08 P. v. Murillo 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Sutter)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ELIAS REGALDO MURILLO, Defendant and Appellant. | C056821 (Super. Ct. No. CRF07-0735) |
On March 7, 2007, defendant Elias Regaldo Murillo entered a building belonging to his former spouse with the intent to commit a theft. Inside the building, defendant attempted to kill his former spouse by personally stabbing her with a knife, inflicting great bodily injury.[1]
Defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to attempted second degree murder (Pen. Code, 664, 187[2]--count 1, as amended), and second degree burglary ( 459--count 8), and admitted, as to count 1, that he personally inflicted great bodily injury under domestic violence circumstances ( 12022.7, subd. (e)) in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts (assault with a deadly weapon, infliction of serious bodily injury, criminal threats, first degree burglary, false imprisonment by violence, infliction of corporal injury) and related allegations (infliction of great bodily injury (as to counts 2 and 7), use of a deadly or dangerous weapon, prior conviction for domestic violence, three prior prison terms) and a stipulated state prison sentence of 10 years; that is, the midterm of seven years for attempted second degree murder plus a low term of three years for infliction of great bodily injury and a concurrent upper term of three years for second degree burglary.[3] The court sentenced defendant accordingly.
Defendant appeals. The court denied defendants request for a certificate of probable cause ( 1237.5).
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 (1979) 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 have elapsed, and we have 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 preparation of the amended abstract of judgment which erroneously reflects that conduct credits were awarded pursuant to section 4019; such credits were awarded pursuant to section 2933.1. The number of days is correct; however, the box checked is incorrect. We will order the abstract corrected accordingly.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment reflecting that the 21 days of conduct credits were awarded pursuant to section 2933.1 and to forward a certified copy of the corrected abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
DAVIS , J.
We concur:
SIMS , Acting P.J.
RAYE , J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] Defendant waived his right to a preliminary hearing and to a probation report. The facts are taken from the factual basis for defendants plea and admission.
[2] Hereafter, undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.
[3] Defendant also entered a no contest plea to infliction of corporal injury to his spouse ( 273.5) in case No. CRF07-0067 in exchange for concurrent sentencing. Defendants notice of appeal does not refer to case No. CRF07-0067.
