People v. Watkins CA5

Filed 11/24/20 P. v. Watkins 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F080318 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF55727) v.

ANDREW JOHN WATKINS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County. James A. Boscoe, Judge. Kaiya R. Pirolo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Eric L. Christoffersen and Sally Espinoza, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Franson, Acting P.J., Smith, J. and Meehan, J.

Defendant Andrew John Watkins was convicted by court trial of vandalism causing over $400 in damage and several other offenses. On appeal, he contends the evidence was insufficient for the trial court to have found that the value of the property he damaged met or exceeded $400 in value. We affirm. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On June 5, 2018,1 the Tuolumne County District Attorney charged defendant with vandalism causing more than $400 in damage (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a));2 count 1), misdemeanor domestic battery (§ 243, subd. (e)(1); count 2), misdemeanor child abuse (§ 273a, subd. (b); count 3), and misdemeanor battery (§ 242; count 4). As to count 1, the information alleged defendant had served two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). On August 28, 2019, defendant waived his right to a jury trial. The court trial began on the same day and, on August 29, 2019, the trial court found defendant guilty on all counts and found true both of the prior prison term allegations.3 On November 8, 2019, the trial court sentenced defendant to a split sentence of one year in county jail and two years on mandatory supervision as follows: on count 1, the upper term of three years, with one year to be served in jail and the two remaining years to be served on mandatory supervision; on count 2, one year, to run concurrently to

1 All further dates refer to the year 2018 unless otherwise stated. 2 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 3 At sentencing, the trial court dismissed both prior prison term enhancement allegations in anticipation of the amendments to section 667.5 effected by Senate Bill No. 136 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.). !(RT 371, 391)! The abstract of judgment erroneously reflects that the trial court imposed a one-year prior prison term enhancement. We will direct the trial court to correct that clerical error by striking the section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancement. (People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1, 89 [“When an abstract of judgment does not reflect the actual sentence imposed in the trial judge’s verbal pronouncement, [the] court has the inherent power to correct such clerical error on appeal, whether on [its] own motion or upon application of the parties.”].)