1 Filed 1/8/15 P.v . Donahue CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Siskiyou)

----

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
SONIA VICTORIN E DONAHUE, Defendant and Appellant. C075609 (Super. Ct. Nos. MCYKCRBF111247, MCYKCRBF12519)

Appointed counsel for defe ndant Sonia Victorine Donahue has asked this court to
review the record to determ ine whether there exist any arguable issues on appeal. ( People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ).) We find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant and shall affirm the judgment, directing minor corrections to the abstract of judgment.2 BACKGROUND
Case No. 11-1247 On September 8, 2010, defendant hitched a ride to Yreka and stole items from the driver’s purse, including $70 in cash and a debit card. The driver identified defendant from a photo lineup. When interviewed, defe ndant admitted that she had taken the items and, in addition, had used the debit card to withdraw $200 from the driver’s bank account. The People filed various charges ag ainst defendant, including felony petty theft with a prior burglary convictio n (former Pen. Code, § 666; 1 count 1) to which she ultimately pled guilty, as we describe post

. Case No. 12-519 In the very early morni ng of December 30, 2011, Pacific Power employee James Harkless responded to a power outage in Happy Camp. While Harkless was in the extended boom/bucket por tion of his truck, making repair s to the power line, defendant entered his company truck and drove it from the scene with Hark less trapped in the
bucket. Harkless was able to shut down the truck using a kill switch, but defendant started the truck up again and continued to drive. This continued multiple times while Harkless screamed and pleaded for his life. Defendant then inte ntionally rammed the boom into a power pole, knoc king Harkless out of the bucket. He sustained major injuries including a broken neck and arm. Defendant fled the scene and abandoned the truck, which was found two days later. Th is conduct resulted in various charges-- encompassing the first seven counts of th e information in case No. 12-519--including carjacking (§ 215, subd. (a); count 2), assa ult by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a ); count 3), and assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd.

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code in effect at the time of the charged offenses.3 (a); count 4), the three counts to which defe ndant ultimately pled guilty, as we describe
post. On March 25, 2012, officers stopped a va n being driven by defendant’s mother. Inside the van, officers saw a one-year-old child. While the officer was writing the citation, the van started up and sped away, dr iving in the wrong lane and above the speed limit while the officers pursued it with lights and siren activat ed. When the van finally stopped, defendant jumped out of the driver’s seat and ran. She fell and then sat down and pretended to have a gun in her purse which she held to her head. This conduct resulted in various charges--encompassing co unts 8 and 9 of the same information-- including felony evading (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a); count 8), and endangering the health of a child (§ 273a, su bd. (a); count 9), both counts to which defendant ultimately pled guilty, as we describe immediately post

. Pleas and Sentencing Defendant entered a negotiated plea to cert ain charges in both cases, as detailed

ante , in exchange for a stipulated state prison sentence of 19 years. In connection with counts 2, 3 and 4, de fendant admitted a great bodily injury enhanc ement. (§ 12022.7, subd. (a).) She also admitted a strike prior. The court imposed the agreed-upon sentence of 19 years 2 as well as various fees and fines and awarded presentence custody cr edit. Defendant appeals. She did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5.)

2 The sentence breaks down as follows: Case No. 12-519: C ount 2--the midterm of five years doubled for the strike prior plus a co nsecutive three-year term for the enhancement (13 years); Count 3--a consecutive one-third the midterm or one year doubled for the strike prior and a concurrent three-year term for the enhancement (t wo years); Count 4--a concurrent midterm of three years doubled for the strike prior and a concurrent three-year term for the enhancement; Count 8--a concur rent midterm of two years doubled for the strike prior; Count 9--a consecutive one-year- four-month term doubled for the strike prior (two years eight months). Case No. 11-1 247: Count 1--a consecutive one-third the4 DISCUSSION Counsel filed an opening brief requesting that we review the record and determine whether there are any ar guable issues on appeal. 3 ( 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 have elapsed, and we have
received no communication from defendant. Ha ving undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable
to defendant. We note two minor errors in preparation of the abstract of judgment. Defendant was awarded 15 percent conduct credit (§ 29 33.1) in case No. 12-5 19 but the abstract erroneously reflects that the 94 days of con duct credit was awarded pursuant to section 4019 (the wrong box was ch ecked). Additionally, appellate counsel notes that the abstract incorrectly reflects a $25 attorney fee award, but a dds that counsel planned to request correction in the trial court. Becaus e we do not know if that correction was made, and we are directing a correction to the abstr act in any event, we will order the abstract
corrected as to both errors.

midterm or eight months doubled for the strike prior (one year four months). We note that pursuant to the stipulation, the court imposed concurrent time on the mandatory consecutive section 12022.7 enha ncements (see § 12022.7, subd. (a)) in connection with counts 3 and 4 (both charging assault). Ther e was no objection or request for application of section 654 at sentencing. Thus any cl aim that a component of the plea agreement violates section 654 would be forfeited had it been raised on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.412(b); People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 295-296.)

3 Counsel failed to set forth the facts of th e case(s), instead merely referring us to the documents supporting defendant’s plea in the trial court. This is unacceptable. (See California Rules of Court, No. 8.204(b)(2)(C), (e).)5 DISPOSITION The trial court is directed to prepare a co rrected abstract of judgment to reflect that conduct credit of 94 days was awarded in cas e No. 12-519 pursuant to section 2933.1 and also to remove the $25 attorn ey fee award if that correction has not already been made, and to forward a certified copy of the corrected abstract to the Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation. The judgment is affirmed.

DUARTE , J.

We concur:

RAYE , P. J.

ROBIE , J.