P. v. >Jackson>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 5/30/13  P. v. Jackson 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 >CALIFORNIA>

 

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 

DIVISION TWO

 

 

 
>

THE PEOPLE,               Plaintiff and Respondent,   v.   GLEN EDWARD JACKSON, JR.,               Defendant and Appellant.

E057658               (Super.Ct.No. RIF1208453)               OPINION

 

            APPEAL
from the Superior Court
of href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Riverside
County.  Charles J.
Koosed, Judge.  Affirmed with directions.

            James
M. Crawford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.

            No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

            Defendant
and appellant Glen Edward Jackson, Jr., was charged by amended information with
infliction of corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5,
subd. (a), counts 1 & 2).href="#_ftn1"
name="_ftnref1" title="">^[1]  It was also alleged that he had served
one prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), and he had one prior strike
conviction (§§ 667, subds. (c) & (e)(1)(A), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1).)  Pursuant to a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to
count 2 and admitted the prison prior and prior strike conviction.  The court sentenced him to the agreed upon
term of five years in state prison, consisting of the low term of two years on
count 2, doubled pursuant to the strike conviction, plus one year for the prior
prison term enhancement.  The court
awarded 24 days of presentence custody credits. 
The court also dismissed count 1 pursuant to the plea agreement.

            Defendant
moved the court to correct the number of presentence custody credits awarded,
pursuant to the October 1, 2011
modification to section 4019.  The court
changed the amount of custody credits
awarded to 40 days (20 actual days and 20 conduct credits).

            Defendant
filed a timely notice of appeal.  We affirm.

PROCEDURAL
BACKGROUND

            Defendant
was charged with and admitted that, on or about October 8, 2012, he committed
the crime of infliction of corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant, a
felony.  (§ 273.5, subd. (a).)

DISCUSSION

            Defendant
appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent
him.  Counsel has filed a brief under the
authority of href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">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 no potential arguable
issues.  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 >People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106,
we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable
issues.

            However,
we note a few apparent clerical errors. 
The abstract of judgment does not reflect that defendant had a prison
prior enhancement (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), and it indicates that defendant was sentenced to a
total of four years in state prison.  The
court actually sentenced defendant to two years on count 2, doubled pursuant to
the prior strike, and added one year pursuant to the prison prior, for a total
of five years.  It is evident that the
superior court clerk inadvertently erred in failing to indicate in the
“enhancements” box on the abstract of judgment that defendant had one prison
prior enhancement, and in recording that defendant was sentenced to only four
years in prison.  Generally, a clerical
error is one inadvertently made.  (>People v. Schultz (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d
804, 808.)  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.)  We also note that the date at the
bottom of the abstract of judgment was listed as “11-23-13.”  However, since the abstract of judgment was
filed on January 23, 2013, we presume that the court clerk meant to list the
date as “1-23-13.”  Accordingly, we will
direct the clerk to correct the abstract of judgment.

DISPOSITION

            The
superior court clerk is directed to correct the January 23, 2013 abstract of
judgment by indicating that defendant had one prison prior enhancement under
section 667.5, subdivision (b), and that the court imposed one year pursuant to
this enhancement.  The clerk should also
correct the abstract of judgment to reflect the total time imposed as five
years and the date as “1-23-13.”  The
clerk is further directed to forward a copy of the amended abstract of judgment
to the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation.  In all other
respects, the judgment is affirmed.

            NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

 

HOLLENHORST                 

                                                J.

 

 

We concur:

 

 

RAMIREZ                             

                                         P. J.

 

 

RICHLI                                  

                                             J.