P. v. Turner
Filed 12/22/08 P. v. Turner 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. LANIER PIERRE TURNER, Defendant and Appellant. | C059213 (Super. Ct. No. 07F11653) |
On December 13, 2007, defendant Lanier Pierre Turner was stopped for driving a vehicle without license plates and with a cracked windshield. Defendant admitted that he was on parole. A search of the car revealed a pipe for smoking methamphetamine and a baggie with 0.56 grams of methamphetamine.
Defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a)) and admitted a strike prior (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12 [for a 1991 Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a) conviction]), in exchange for a stipulated state prison sentence of the low term of 16 months, doubled for the strike prior. The court granted the prosecutors motion to dismiss the remaining count and allegations in the interest of justice.
The court sentenced defendant to state prison accordingly.
Defendant appeals.
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. The term for the offense in item 1 is listed as one year four months and then under enhancements in item 3, another one year four months is listed for the strike prior. The three strikes law is an alternate sentencing scheme, not an enhancement. (Pen. Code, 667, 1170.12, subd. (c)(1); People v. Dotson (1997) 16 Cal.4th 547, 556; People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, 527; People v. Sipe (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 468, 486.) We will order the abstract corrected to reflect in item 1 that defendant was sentenced to state prison for two years eight months for the offense.
DISPOSITION
The trial court is directed to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment to reflect in item 1 that the term imposed is two years eight months for the offense and deleting reference to the strike prior as an enhancement in item 3. The amended abstract correctly reflects that defendant was sentenced as a two-strike offender (box is checked in item 4). The trial court shall forward a certified copy of the corrected abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The judgment is affirmed.
BUTZ , J.
We concur:
SCOTLAND , P. J.
HULL, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.
