The People v. Ritchie CA5

Filed 9/25/13 P. v. Ritchie CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F066156 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 12CM1125) v.

GLENN ELLIOTT RITCHIE, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. Donna L. Tarter, Judge. James M. Crawford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Gomes, J. and Peña, J.

This is an appeal from judgment entered after appellant, Glenn Elliott Ritchie, pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement. Ritchie contends the trial court’s oral pronouncement with respect to a restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4)1 conflicts with the minute order and abstract of judgment and therefore requires correction. We conclude the record can be harmonized to resolve the conflict and affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In December 2011, Ritchie was arrested after .17 grams of methamphetamine were found on his person. He was charged by information with possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)/count 1), a felony, and with being under the influence of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (a)/count 2), a misdemeanor. In addition, the information alleged in count 1 that Ritchie had two serious or violent prior convictions within the meaning of sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (i), and 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d). It was further alleged that Ritchie served a prior prison term within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). Ritchie was arraigned on the information, entered a plea of not guilty, and denied the enhancement allegations. On September 14, 2012, at sentencing, the trial court discussed a plea agreement with counsel in chambers. The trial court orally pronounced its indicated sentence and advised Ritchie of the consequences of entering a plea. In doing so, the trial court told Ritchie it was going to impose a restitution fine and asked the probation officer the amount. The following exchange occurred: