P.v. Brooks

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 6/21/13  P.v. Brooks 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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

(Shasta)

----

 

 

 
>

THE PEOPLE,                           Plaintiff and Respondent,               v.   MICHAEL RONALD BROOKS,                           Defendant and Appellant.

C072772   (Super. Ct. No. 12F7059)

 

 

 

 

Appointed counsel for defendant Michael Ronald Brooks asked this court
to review the record to determine whether there are any href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">arguable issues on appeal.  (People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).)  We will correct a clerical error in the
abstract of judgment, but we find no other arguable error that would result in
a disposition more favorable to defendant. 
We will affirm the judgment.

I

            According to the stipulated factual
basis for defendant’s plea, officers responded to an assault at the home of
defendant’s father.  The father told
officers that defendant threw him to the floor and stabbed him in the ear with
a kitchen knife.  Defendant admitted
assaulting his father. 

            In exchange for a stipulated term of
four years in state prison and the
dismissal of an alleged prior strike conviction, defendant pleaded no contest
to assault with a deadly weapon (a knife) and admitted serving a prior prison
term.  The trial court sentenced
defendant to the stipulated four-year prison term (the middle term of three
years for the assault plus one year for the prior prison term), awarded 56 days
of presentence custody credit (28 actual days and 28 conduct days), and imposed
various fines and fees. 

            As part of his plea, defendant also
admitted two petitions for violation of probation in a different case.  The trial court revoked probation and imposed
a concurrent 180-day term. 

II

            Appointed counsel filed an href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">opening brief setting forth the facts of
the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there
are any arguable issues on appeal.  (>Wende, supra, 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 the opening
brief.

            Defendant filed a letter described
as a supplemental brief, but it does
not assert any contentions.  It simply
directs us to review his case and all documents.  It also informs us that defendant is asking
his attorney to file a Wende brief.

            Nonetheless, we have identified a
clerical error in the abstract of judgment. 
The abstract of judgment misspells defendant’s name as “Michale.”  The trial court has a duty to ensure a
correct abstract is prepared; accordingly, a corrected abstract, with the
correct spelling of defendant’s name, must be prepared.  (See People
v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185; People
v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385-389.) 

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

DISPOSITION

            The judgment is affirmed.  The trial court is directed to prepare a
corrected abstract of judgment with the correct spelling of defendant’s name,
and to forward the corrected abstract of judgment to the href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation.  

 

 

                                                                                                    MAURO              , Acting P. J.

 

 

We concur:

 

 

                        MURRAY                          , J.

 

 

                        DUARTE                           , J.