P. v. Williams
Filed 12/16/08 P. v. Williams 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. ANTHONY BRUCE WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant. | C057222 (Super. Ct. No. 05F03758) |
On March 9, 2005, defendant Anthony Bruce Williams struck his wife several times with a metal baseball bat, causing lacerations to her head that required 30 staples to close.
Defendant pled no contest to corporal injury of a spouse (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (a), count 1)[1]and assault with a deadly weapon ( 245, subd. (a)(1), count 2). Defendant also admitted he personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim ( 12022.7, subd. (e)), used a dangerous and deadly weapon ( 12022, subd. (b)(1)), and was previously convicted of a serious felony within the meaning of the Three Strikes Law ( 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12).
At sentencing, the trial court struck the prior felony pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero)(1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 12 years in state prison, and ordered defendant to pay various fines and fees.
On appeal, defendant claims two errors in the abstract of judgment: (1) the abstract of judgment incorrectly indicates a concurrent three-year term imposed on his conviction on count 2, and (2) the abstract of judgment wrongly states he was ordered to pay $1,750 in victim restitution. Defendant asks this court to order the abstract of judgment amended.
An amended abstract of judgment was filed in this court on July 7, 2008. The amended abstract of judgment correctly reflects that the trial court stayed defendants sentence on count 2 pursuant to Penal Code, section 654, and ordered defendant to pay $750 in victim restitution with an additional amount to be determined at a subsequent hearing.
Since the trial court has amended the abstract of judgment so as to cure defendants grievances, there is nothing for us to do.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
SIMS , J.
We concur:
SCOTLAND , P. J.
BUTZ , J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1]Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
