People v. Pottichen CA3

Filed 12/17/14 P. v. Pottichen CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C074080

v. (Super. Ct. No. 13F00455)

DAVID MICHAEL POTTICHEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant David Michael Pottichen asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. However, we remand the matter to the trial court to amend the sentencing minute order and order of probation to accurately reflect the trial court’s sentencing orders.

1

I On January 18, 2013, a felony complaint was filed charging defendant and a codefendant with grand theft (count 1; Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a))1 and receiving stolen property (count 2; § 496, subd. (a)). Both offenses were alleged to have occurred on or about and between October 8 and November 28, 2012. On March 25, 2013, defendant entered a no contest plea to count 1, in return for a grant of probation with 330 days in county jail, the dismissal of count 2, and the dismissal of a trailing misdemeanor case with a Harvey2 waiver. The factual basis of the plea was as follows: On or about the dates alleged in the complaint, defendant unlawfully took jewelry and cash, the value of which exceeded $950, from the victim. At the sentencing hearing on April 15, 2013, at which both defendant and the codefendant were sentenced, the trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and granted defendant probation for five years, including 330 days in county jail. The court orally awarded defendant 180 days of presentence custody credits (90 actual days and 90 conduct days).3 The court reserved jurisdiction to determine victim restitution at a later time. At the outset, the court stated: “[W]e already have probation conditions prepared. I’m going to adopt most of the conditions. [¶] If I do not talk about a specific condition, it will be adopted without any changes. The conditions generally look the same for both defendants.” As to fines and fees, the court stated: “I’m going to delete the fines that I can in light of the fact that there is probably going to be a substantial restitution order.