Filed 12/11/13 P. v. Pettigrew CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
JAJUAN PETTIGREW,
Defendant and Appellant. B250545
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA353918)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superi or Court of Los Angeles County, Anne Harwood Egerton, Judge. Affirmed.

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal , for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

************2 Defendant Jajuan Pettigrew pled no contest to robbery and pled guilty to an assault
that occurred while he was incarcerated for the robbery. Defendant moved to have his
sentence corrected and the court amended the sentence in the manner requested by defendant. Defendant now challenges the am ended sentence. His counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 stating that no arguable issue exists. We find no arguable issue and affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURE On February 4, 2009, defe ndant pled no contest to a charge of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and admitted personally using a firearm in the commi ssion of that offense (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (b)). On February 20, 20 09, the court entered a judgment of conviction and sentenced defendant to two year s for second degree robbery and 10 years
for the firearm use enhancement. On March 5, 2009, while incarcerated de fendant committed an assault (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)). Defendant entered a plea ag reement. He pled gu ilty to the assault, and the People struck a great bodily injury enhancement. The parties agreed that the sentence was to be the low term of two ye ars doubled for the prior robbery strike
conviction. In accordan ce with the plea, the court senten ced defendant to four years in state prison.
Defendant moved to have his sentence co rrected. Defendant’s counsel argued that the court must select a principal term and then sentence defend ant to one-third the
midterm on the subordinat e count. The People conceded error.
The court resentenced defe ndant as follows: It sele cted the robbery as the principal term. It ordered defendant to serve th e low term of two years for the robbery. It added 10 years for the firearm enhancement (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). The court selected the midterm of three years for the assault an d ordered defendant to serve one-third the midterm, which equals one yea r. The one year was then d oubled for the robbery strike prior. The total aggregate sentence for both cases was 14 years.3 Defendant appealed. We se nt defendant a letter indicating that his counsel filed a brief identifying no issues and he may subm it a supplemental brief within 30 days of our
letter. Defendant did not f ile a supplemental brief.
DISCUSSION The court appointed counsel to represent defendant. Counsel filed a brief pursuant

to People v. Wende
, supra , 25 Cal.3d 436 identifying no i ssues. Defendant did not file a supplemental brief. We have reviewed the entire record and find no arguable issue on appeal and are satisfied that defendant’ s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel. ( Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; see also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 111; People v. Wende
, supra , at p. 441.)

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

FLIER, J.

WE CONCUR:

BIGELOW, P. J.

GRIMES, J.