 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Whalen6/3/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Defendant Charlene Whalen pled guilty to child endangerment (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a)) and felony driving under the influence of alcohol (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)) and admitted four prior driving under the influence convictions (Veh. Code, § 23550) with the understanding she would receive no more than four years eight months in state prison.
In return, the prosecution dismissed the remaining charges of driving under the influence , two charges of driving with a blood alcohol level of .08 percent (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (b)), escape from arrest (Pen. Code, § 836.6, subd. (b)), driving with a suspended license (Veh. Code, § 14601.2, subd. (a)), and a prior prison term enhancement (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b).)
The trial court imposed the middle term of four years for child endangerment and eight months consecutive for driving under the influence with prior convictions.
Defendant filed a notice of appeal and an application for a certificate of probable cause, which was granted by the trial court. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5.)
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on 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. (People v. Wende (1979) 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 opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant.
We note a clerical mistake on the abstract of judgment. The clerk has checked a box indicating that the consecutive sentence on count II is one-third the middle term, but has entered two years in the numerical box rather than eight months. We shall order the error corrected.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error in favor of defendant.
DISPOSITION
The superior court shall issue a corrected abstract of judgment substituting "8 months" for "2 years" in the sentence for count II and forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur:
SCOTLAND, P.J.
DAVIS, J.
|