People v. Ornelas CA2/6

Filed 8/16/24 P. v. Ornelas CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B335187 (Super. Ct. No. 2014021013) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

ALEJANDRO RIVERA ORNELAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

In a negotiated disposition, Ornelas waived his right to a jury trial and pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit extortion (Pen. Code,1 §§ 182, subd. (a), 518 subd. (a); count 1); and conspiracy to commit sale of a controlled substance (§ 182, subd. (a)(1), Health & Saf. Code, § 11379; count 2). Ornelas admitted several aggravating factors (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(4), (8), and (10)), and admitted that he committed these crimes for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). In another case (2013033013), Ornelas pleaded guilty to being a

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)). Ornelas admitted that he suffered a 2020 prior serious felony and strike conviction for robbery (§§ 667, subds. (a)(1), (c)(1), (e)(1), 1170.12, subds. (a)(1), (c)(1), 211.) The trial court sentenced Ornelas to 21 years, four months in state prison as follows: for count 1, the upper term of four years (§ 520) doubled plus the upper term of four years on the gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)) for 12 years; for count 2, one-third the midterm of three years doubled plus one-third the midterm of three years on the gang enhancement for three years consecutive; and for unlawfully possessing a firearm, Ornelas was sentenced to one-third the midterm of two years doubled for one year, four months. The court imposed five years consecutive for the serious felony prior. We appointed counsel to represent Ornelas in this appeal. After counsel examined the record, he filed an opening brief that raises no arguable issues. On May 31, 2024, we advised Ornelas by mail that he had 30 days to submit a supplemental brief raising contentions or issues he wished us to consider. Ornelas did not do so. We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that Ornelas’s attorney fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) However, while the abstract of judgment correctly lists the sentences for each count and enhancement, it incorrectly calculates the aggregate sentence as 20 years. The sentence of 21 years, four months orally stated by the trial court prevails. (People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2.) Accordingly, we direct the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment.