People v. James CA1/1

Filed 12/13/13 P. v. James CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A137321 v. MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER JAMES, (Napa County Super. Ct. No. CR-156725) Defendant and Appellant.

Michael Christopher James appeals from the judgment entered following his no contest plea. His counsel has raised no issues and asked this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any issues that would, if resolved favorably to defendant, result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; see Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259.) Counsel notified defendant that he could file his own supplemental brief, raising any points he chooses to call to this court’s attention. No supplemental brief has been received from defendant. Upon independent review of the record, we find the abstract of judgment and sentencing minutes must be corrected to strike the concurrent sentence imposed for corporal injury to a spouse and instead to provide that sentence be stayed on that count under Penal Code1 section 654, as well as on the associated enhancement. No other arguable issues are presented for review. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed in all other respects.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY2 Defendant was charged by amended information on March 29, 2012, with kidnapping (§ 207, subd. (a)) and inflicting corporal injury to a spouse (§ 273.5, subd. (a)). As to both counts, the information alleged defendant had inflicted great bodily injury on the victim under circumstances involving domestic violence. (§ 12022.7, subd. (e).) Defendant pleaded not guilty to both counts. Defendant and the victim, his wife, attended a wedding and reception on the afternoon and evening of April 30, 2011. Both defendant and his wife were drinking at the event. Defendant appeared to be intoxicated. The couple got into an argument in the parking lot outside the event about whether they would host an after-party with some of their friends and whether her parents would take both of their children for the night. He forced her into his vehicle and drove off with her. During the ride, he struck her repeatedly in the face with his elbow, breaking her nose and teeth, inflicting other injuries, and causing her to briefly lose consciousness. On June 6, 2012, defendant changed his plea to no contest on both counts, and admitted the truth of the great bodily injury allegations attached to both counts pursuant to an agreement providing for a maximum sentence of nine years in prison. The parties stipulated that the preliminary hearing transcript provided a factual basis for the plea. On October 10, 2012, defendant was sentenced to eight years in state prison, consisting of the middle term of five years on the kidnapping charge plus the low term of three years for the great bodily injury enhancement on that count. The court addressed count two as follows: “As to count two, imposition of sentence as to that offense is stayed pending the completion of the offense [sic] on count number one, and imposed a midterm of three years. And that sentence is concurrent to the sentence in count one.” The abstract of judgment reflects imposition of a concurrent sentence on count two and a stay of the enhancement on that count. The court ordered victim restitution in the