P.
v. Ochoa
Filed
5/6/13 P. v. Ochoa 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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.
TAMMY MARIE OCHOA,
Defendant
and Appellant.
C071443
(Super. Ct. No. 11F08705)
This case comes to us pursuant to
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Having reviewed the record as required by
We provide the following brief
description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v.
Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
Defendant Tammy Marie
Ochoa pleaded no contest to first degree
robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (a)) and admitted a principal
was armed with a firearm (id.,
§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)) in the commission of the offense. In exchange, three related counts and an
arming enhancement were dismissed.
Defendant was sentenced to
awarded 119 days’ custody credit and 17 days’ conduct credit, and
ordered to pay a $1,400 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4), a
$1,400 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked (
operations assessment (id.,
§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), and a $30 court facilities assessment
(Gov. Code, § 70373). The trial
court issued a certificate of probable
cause.
On December 11,
2011, defendant and another female entered the residence of
70-year-old Jintana Shaw. Defendant
sprayed Shaw in the face with pepper spray, punched her,
and then bound her legs and arms with duct tape. An adult male entered the residence, held a
gun to Shaw’s head, and demanded her car keys, which she gave him. Dennis Kane, an employee of Shaw, arrived at
her residence. The adult male pulled
Kane inside the residence and then shot Kane in the face. Thereafter, defendant and the other two
assailants fled from the residence.
We appointed
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. (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 of the
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.
However, our review discloses three
minor errors on the abstract of judgment.
First, the $40 court operations assessment is erroneously listed as
$30. Second, the $30 court
facilities assessment is omitted. Third,
a $10 fine pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.5 is listed although
no such fine was imposed.
The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to correct the
abstract of judgment to list the court operations assessment as $40, include
the $30 court facilities assessment, and delete the $10 fine imposed pursuant
to Penal Code section 1202.5, and to forward a certified copy of the
corrected abstract to the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation.
MURRAY , J.
We concur:
BUTZ , Acting P. J.
DUARTE , J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] Because the matter was resolved by plea, our
statement of facts is taken from the prosecutor’s statement of factual basis
and the probation officer’s report.
