California Court of Appeal Jan 21, 2021 No. E075142Unpublished
Filed 1/21/21 P. v. Jimenez CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E075142
v. (Super.Ct.No. FSB19004044)
ARTURO JIMENEZ, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Harold T.
Wilson, Jr., Judge. Affirmed with directions.
Jill Kent, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant Arturo Jimenez pled no contest to possession of
ammunition by a prohibited person (Pen. Code, § 30305, subd. (a)(1), count 2)1 and
grand theft from the person of another (§ 487, subd. (c), count 7). Defendant additionally
admitted that he had suffered a prior strike conviction. (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667,
subds. (b)-(i).) Pursuant to the plea agreement, the court sentenced defendant to an
aggregate term of five years four months of imprisonment.
After a notice of appeal was filed, this court appointed counsel to represent him on
appeal. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the facts
and a statement of the case. We affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2
The victim testified he drove his vehicle to a liquor store, where defendant
approached him and asked for a ride. The victim agreed to give defendant a ride.
Defendant then called over a woman, and they both entered the victim’s vehicle.
When they arrived at the location to which defendant had requested the ride,
defendant began choking the victim. Defendant said, “‘Give me your money.’”
Defendant also told the woman to go through the victim’s pockets. She reached into the
victim’s pockets and removed his credit and bank cards.
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
2The parties stipulated that the police report and preliminary hearing transcript would provide the factual basis for the plea. As part of the plea agreement, defendant executed a waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754 as to the dismissed counts. 2
The victim exited the vehicle and told people at the adjacent store that defendant
was trying to steal his vehicle. The victim began to struggle with defendant to prevent
him from taking his car. Defendant drove off, dragging defendant across the parking lot.
The victim fell to the ground and defendant ran over the victim’s foot. Defendant and the
woman drove off in the victim’s vehicle.
Several weeks later, an officer located the victim’s vehicle. The officer’s partner
detained defendant and the woman nearby. Defendant had the key to the victim’s vehicle
in his pocket. Defendant admitted driving the vehicle that day. An officer found a
backpack in the back seat of the vehicle containing two loaded magazines; each magazine
contained seven bullets.
Police notified the victim that they had found his vehicle and took him to the
location. The vehicle had a cracked windshield and two dents, which were not there
before. The transmission was also damaged.
The People charged defendant by felony information with carjacking (§ 215,
subd. (a), count 1), possession of ammunition by a prohibited person (§ 30305,
Pursuant to a plea bargain, defendant pled no contest to an added count of grand
theft from the person of another (§ 487, subd. (c), count 7) and possession of ammunition
by a prohibited person (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1), count 2). Defendant additionally admitted
that he had suffered a prior strike conviction. (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-
(i).) In return, the remaining counts were dismissed. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the
trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of imprisonment of five years
four months consisting of the following: the midterm of two years on the count 7
offense, doubled pursuant to the prior strike conviction enhancement, plus a consecutive
eight months, one-third the midterm, on the count 2 offense, doubled pursuant to the prior
strike conviction enhancement.3
II. DISCUSSION
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which
he has not done. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we
have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.
3 The abstract of judgment and sentencing minute order erroneously fail to reflect that the court imposed sentence pursuant to the prior strike conviction enhancement. Thus, they both incorrectly reflect the court imposed a midterm of four years on the count 7 offense with no reference to the prior strike conviction enhancement. We shall direct the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment and sentencing minute order. (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, [appellate courts have] the inherent power to correct such clerical error on appeal, whether on our own motion or upon application of the parties.”].) 4
III. DISPOSITION
The trial court is directed to correct the abstract of judgment and sentencing
minute order to reflect that the sentence imposed was pursuant to sections 1170.12,
subdivisions (a)-(d), and 667, subdivisions (b)-(i). The superior court clerk is directed to
forward a copy of the corrected abstract of judgment and sentencing minute order to the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER Acting P. J. We concur:
CODRINGTON J.
MENETREZ J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction and sentence, finding no arguable issues upon independent review, but directed the trial court to correct clerical errors in the abstract of judgment and sentencing minute order.
Issues
Whether there are any arguable issues on appeal following a plea of no contest and sentencing.
Whether the abstract of judgment and sentencing minute order accurately reflect the court's oral pronouncement of sentence.
Disposition. Affirmed with directions.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.”
“The trial court is directed to correct the abstract of judgment and sentencing minute order to reflect that the sentence imposed was pursuant to sections 1170.12, subdivisions (a)-(d), and 667, subdivisions (b)-(i).”