People v. Morgan CA3

Filed 2/18/15 P. v. Morgan CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C076246

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 09F06211)

v.

KEVIN LEE MORGAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

This is an appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). On August 12, 2009, officers arrived at the victim’s home on a report of a burglary in progress and saw a truck drive away as the officers got out of their patrol car. The truck driven by codefendant Jodi Northcutt had been parked in front of the home. When officers entered the victim’s home, they discovered that it had been ransacked.

1

Defendant Kevin Lee Morgan fled from the scene but he was arrested as was codefendant Northcutt. A search of the truck revealed stolen property.1 Defendant entered a no contest plea to first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459)2 and admitted a strike prior (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) (2004 first degree burglary) in exchange for a sentencing lid of 12 years and dismissal of the remaining counts with a waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754 (two more counts of first degree burglary and two counts of receiving stolen property). After denying defendant’s request that the court strike the strike prior, the court sentenced defendant to state prison for the upper term of six years, doubled for the strike prior to 12 years.3 Defendant appeals. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5.) We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. We find an error in the judgment and in the preparation of the abstract. The court imposed a $2,400 restitution fine but failed to impose the corresponding parole