P.
v. Farmer
Filed
2/26/13 P. v.
Farmer CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff
and Respondent,
v.
DANIEL THOMAS FARMER,
Defendant
and Appellant.
E056476
(Super.Ct.No. FBA1100513)
OPINION
APPEAL
from the Superior Court of San Bernardino
County. John B. Gibson, Judge. Affirmed as modified.
Jeanne
C. Vanderhoff, under appointment by the Court
of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant
and appellant Daniel Thomas Farmer was charged by
a firearm with gross negligence (Pen. Code,
possession of an assault weapon (§ 12280, subd. (b), count 2), and possession
of a large capacity magazine (§ 12020, subd. (a)(2), count 3). Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence
that was seized after an illegal patdown search. (§ 1538.5.)
A trial court denied the motion.
Defendant renewed the motion in conjunction with a
The court denied both motions.
Then, pursuant to a plea agreement,
defendant pled guilty to count 3. The court
sentenced him to 16 months in county prison and awarded 116 days of presentence
custody credits (58 actual days and 58 conduct credits).
Defendant
filed a notice of appeal regarding the denial of the
PROCEDURAL
BACKGROUND
Defendant
was charged with and admitted that, on or about August 20, 2011, he possessed a large capacity magazine,
a felony. (§ 12020, subd. (a)(2).)
DISCUSSION
Defendant
appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed
of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436 and Anders v. California (1967)
386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case and two potential arguable
issues: (1) whether the trial court
erred in denying his motion to suppress; and (2) whether defendant’s trial
counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to argue that defendant was
illegally detained, and that all evidence flowing from the illegal detention
should have been suppressed. Counsel has
also requested this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We
offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which
he has not done.
Pursuant to the mandate of
we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable
issues.
Although
not raised by the parties, we note one apparent clerical error. Defendant pled guilty to count 3 on June 7, 2012. The court
then asked whether the People “move[d] to dismiss per [the] plea agreement,â€
and the People so moved. The minute
order states that the court ordered counts 1 and 2 dismissed, on motion of the
People, pursuant to the plea bargain. However, the plea agreement did not mention
the dismissal of counts 1 and 2.
Consequently, when the People moved the court “to dismiss per [the] plea
agreement,†the court did not actually dismiss counts 1 and 2. The record indicates that the parties
intended counts 1 and 2 to be dismissed.
It appears to have been an inadvertent clerical error that the dismissal
of counts 1 and 2 was not included in the plea agreement.
Generally,
a clerical error is one inadvertently made.
(People v. Schultz (1965) 238
Cal.App.2d 804, 808.) Clerical error can
be made by a clerk, by counsel, or by the court itself. (Ibid.) A court “has the inherent power to correct
clerical errors in its records so as to make these records reflect the true
facts. [Citations.]†(In re
Candelario (1970) 3 Cal.3d 702, 705.)
Accordingly, in the interest of clarity, we will modify the judgment to
explicitly state that counts 1 and 2 are dismissed. We will also direct the superior court clerk
to generate a new minute order reflecting the dismissal.
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is modified to expressly state that counts 1 and 2 are dismissed. The superior court clerk is directed to
generate a new minute order reflecting the dismissal. The clerk is further directed to forward a
copy of the new minute order to the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s
Department. In all other respects, the
judgment is affirmed.
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
HOLLENHORST
Acting P. J.
We concur:
McKINSTER
J.
CODRINGTON
J.
name="_ftn1" title=""> [1] All further statutory references will be to
the Penal Code, unless otherwise noted.
