1

Filed 6/17/14 P. v. Tafoya CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

(San Joaquin)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. ANGELA RENEE TAFOYA,

Defendant and Appellant. C075143
(Super. Ct. No. SF121804A)

This appeal comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal. 3d 436 ( Wende ). On August 2 2, 2012, de fendant was seen in a local Walm art store. With defendant

were two older children, an infant in a stroller, and another child in a shopping cart. Sharita Sheard, an as set protection associate at Walm art, saw defendant tear “UPC tags” off of merchandise and hide the merchandise in a diaper bag attached to the bac k of her

stroll er.2

Sheard followed defendant around the store and watched defendant conceal numerous other items including but not limited to: toys, clothing, live f ish from the pet department, Enfamil baby formula , and music CD ’ s. Sheard t hen watched defendant as

s he stood i n the McDonald’s inside the Walm art; defendant was watching the front door. After about 15 minutes, defendant walked out the door with her shopping cart and all the

stolen merchandise.

Shear d stopped defendant and brought her back inside the st ore. Along with two other associates, Sheard found more than 7 0 stolen ite ms, totaling $495. Sheard contacted the police (despite defendant’s pleas) and defendant was later charged with two counts of petty theft with three or more prior theft convictions

. (Pen. Code, § 666.) 1 The People further alleged defendant was previously convicted of a serious or violent felony. (§§ 1170.12, subd. (b) , 667, subd. (d).) Defendant’s competence was subsequently declared in doubt and criminal proceedings were suspended pursuant to section 1368. Two physicians were appointed to examine defendant pursuant to section 1369; they both declared her competent to stand

trial. Defe ndant and the People then stipulated to def endant’s competence, and criminal

procee dings were reinstated. Defendant later pleaded guilty to one cou nt of petty theft with priors. She also admitted to serving at least one day of incarceration for five pr ior theft convictions, admitted she was previously convicted of a strike offense, and admitted she violated her probation in San Joaquin County case Nos. SF115793A and SF 117353A. The remaining charge and a llegations were dismissed.

The trial court sent enced defendant to an aggregate term of four years in state prison, awarded her 518 days of custody credit s , and ordered her to pay various fines and

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.3

fees. For violating her probation in case Nos. SF115793A and SF117353A, the trial

court sentenced defenda nt to an additional 48 months in prison, to be served concurrently with the sentence imposed in t he current matter. T he court also ordered defendant to pay a previously stayed restitution fine totaling $240 in case No. SF115793A.
Defendant later moved the trial to withdraw her plea. The trial court conducted a hearing pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal. 3d 118 , and appointed alternate counsel to assist defendant in her motion. Defendant’s motion was later denied, alternate counsel was relieved, and defendant appealed. Defendant’s request for a certificate of proba ble cause was granted. 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. Our examination of the record reveals a clerical error in the abstract of judgment. At sentencing, the trial court ordered defendant to pay a previously st ayed restitution fine totaling $24 0 in case No. SF115793A. That order was omitted from the abstract of judgment. Because this is simply a clerical error, we will correct it on appeal and direct

the trial court to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment accordingly. ( People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal. 4th 181, 185 [“Courts may correct clerical errors at any time, and appellate courts

. . . that have properly assumed jurisdiction of cases have ordered correction of abstracts of judgment that did not accurately reflect the oral judgments of sentencing courts.”].) Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.4 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to correct t he abstract of judgment to include the order that defendant pay the previously stayed restitution fine

total ing $240 in San Joaquin County c ase No. SF115793A. The trial court is further directed to forward a certified copy of the corrected abstract of jud gment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

NICHOLSON , J.

We concur:

BLEASE , Acting P. J.

HOCH , J.