P. v. Rodriguez
Filed 1/22/10 P. v. Rodriguez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Placer)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JONATHAN MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ, Defendant and Appellant. | C060912 (Super. Ct. Nos. 62058112, 62061511) |
Defendant Jonathan Michael Rodriquez pled no contest to second degree burglary (count three) and attempted first degree burglary (count one). He was sentenced in accordance to an aggregate term of two years,[1] comprised of a two-year term for the attempted first degree burglary and a concurrent two-year term on the second degree burglary.
Defendants sole contention in his opening brief was that the sentence imposed on count three for attempted second-degree burglary was incorrect. In his reply brief, defendant acknowledges this argument was made in error. The error apparently occurred because of an error in the abstract of judgment. That is, the abstract of judgment shows that count three was a conviction and sentence for attempted residential burglary. Accordingly, we will direct the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment.
DISPOSITION
The trial court is directed to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment reflecting that the sentence on count three was imposed pursuant to second degree burglary, not attempted second degree burglary, and to forward a certified copy of the corrected abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed.
ROBIE , J.
We concur:
SCOTLAND , P. J.
CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] Because of the nature of this case and the concession by defendant of his mistaken reading of the record, the underlying facts and procedural history are not relevant to the disposition of this matter and therefore not recounted here.
