People v. Garland CA3

California Court of Appeal Jan 29, 2014 No. C074078Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction and sentence but remanded the case for the preparation of a corrected abstract of judgment to address clerical errors regarding fees, restitution, and omissions.

Issues

Whether there are any arguable issues on appeal under People v. Wende.
Whether the abstract of judgment accurately reflects the trial court's oral pronouncement of judgment.

Disposition. remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.”

“the new abstract of judgment must delete the “booking fee” and “c[l]ass[ification] fee,” which are not mandatory and were not imposed orally by the trial court at sentencing.”

“oral pronouncement of judgment prevails over any contradictory written order”

Filed 1/29/14 P. v. Garland CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C074078

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 12F07052 & 12F07057) v.

CODY KEITH GARLAND,

Defendant and Appellant.

This appeal comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). In case No. 12F07052, a first amended complaint charged defendant Cody Keith Garland with making criminal threats (count one; Pen. Code, § 422),1 violating a protective order (count two; § 166, subd. (c)(1)), and brandishing a deadly weapon (count three; § 417, subd. (a)(1)). All counts were alleged to have occurred on or about October 1, 2012. Defendant was also alleged to have served two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).

1 Undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.

In case No. 12F07057, a first amended complaint charged defendant with unlawfully taking or driving a motor vehicle (counts one, three, & five; Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)); receiving a stolen vehicle (counts two, four, & six; § 496d, subd. (a)); receiving stolen property (count seven; § 496, subd. (a)); and passing a fraudulent check (count eight; § 476). Counts one and two were alleged to have occurred on or about and between August 27 and September 2, 2012; counts three and four were alleged to have occurred on or about and between August 7 and September 8, 2012; counts five and six were alleged to have occurred on or about and between October 24 and October 26, 2012; count seven was alleged to have occurred on or about and between August 29 and October 26, 2012; and count eight was alleged to have occurred on or about October 26, 2012. The same prior prison terms were alleged as in case No. 12F07052. On April 29, 2013, in case No. 12F07052, defendant pled no contest to assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)), a reasonably related offense to count one, for a stipulated state prison term of three years. That same day in case No. 12F07057, defendant pled no contest to counts one and three (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) for an additional eight months consecutive on each count. All remaining counts and allegations were to be dismissed under the terms of the agreement.2

People v. Garland CA3

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, C074078

CODY KEITH GARLAND,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

BUTZ , J.

MURRAY , J.

AI Brief