1 Filed 9/4/14 P. v. Baker CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 APPELL ATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. HERBERT MITCHELL BAKER, Defendant and Appellant. E060827 (Super.Ct.No. BAF1300812) OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Ri verside County. Jorge C. Hernandez, Judge. Affirmed with directions. David K. Rankin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.2 I STATEMENT OF THE CASE On November 27, 2013, an amended felony complaint charged defendant and appellant Herbert Baker with first-de gree burglary under Penal Code 1 section 459 (count 1); and possession of a controlled substance (metham phetamine) under Health and Safety Code, section 11377, su bdivision (a) (count 2). The complaint also alleged six prison priors under sect ion 667.5, subdivision (b); a se rious prior offense under section 667, subdivision (a); and a strike prior under se ctions 667, subdivisions (c) through (e)(i), and 1170.12, subdivision (c)(1). 2 On February 27, 2014, the court denied defendant’s request to replace his appointed counsel. On Marc h 10, 2014, defendant entered a plea agreement wherein he pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance (count 2) and admitted the strike prior, in exchange for a stipulated sentence of 32 months in state pris on and dismissal of the balance of the complaint.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.

2 The reporter’s transcript from the Ma rch 10, 2014 hearing is clear that defendant pled guilty to count 2, “That’s a Health and Safety Code 11377(a).” The felony plea form, executed on th e same date as the hearing, stated that defendant was pleading guilty to violating He alth and Safety Code secti on 11377, subdivision (a). The minute order from the March 10, 2014 heari ng, however, provides that defendant pled guilty to count 1. Moreover, th e abstract of judgment filed on March 14, 2014, provides that defendant was convicted of count 1 – fi rst degree burglary under Penal Code section 459.3 Thereafter, the trial court sentenced defend ant pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement – 16 months in state prison, doubl ed per the strike prior, for a total of 32 months. Defendant received 212 days in pres entencing custody credits. The trial court also imposed various fines and fees. On April 1, 2014, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal challenging the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea.
II STATEMENT OF FACTS As a factual basis for the plea, defendant made an oral statement admitting that on November 26, 2013, he possessed a usable am ount of methamphetamine. Defendant also admitted that on October 30, 1986, he was convi cted of the crime of burglary in the first degree, which is considered a serious and violent felony.
III ANALYSIS After defendant appealed, and upon his re quest, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has file d a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 se tting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the f acts, and potential arguable issu es, and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.4 We offered defendant an oppo rtunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal. 4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues. However, as noted above, there is a disc repancy between the reporter’s transcript and the felony plea form, from the minut e order and abstract of judgment. As a general rule, the record will be ha rmonized when it is in conflict. ( People v. Smith (1983) 33 Cal.3d 596, 599.) “‘[A] disc repancy between the judgment as orally pronounced and as entered in the minutes is presumably the result of clerical error.’” ( People v. Williams (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 507, 517; see also In re Daoud (1976) 16 Cal.3d 879, 882, fn. 1 [trial c ourt could properly correct a clerical error in a minute order nunc pro tunc to conform to the oral order of that date if there was a discrepancy between the two].) In this case, it is clear fro m the record that defendant pled guilty to count 2, a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a), and the clerk made a clerical error in entering count 1, instead of count 2, in the minute order. Thereafter, at a later date, the same error was repeated in the abstract of judgment. Therefore, we shall remand this case to the trial court to correct the minute order and abstract of judgment to reflect that defendant was convicted of coun t 2 under Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a).5 IV DISPOSITION This cause is remanded to the trial court. We hereby order the trial court to correct the minute order dated March 10, 2014, and the abstract of judgment dated March 14, 2014, to reflect that defendant pled guilty to and was convicted of co unt 2, a violation of Health and Safety Code sec tion 11377, subdivision (a), and not count 1, a violation of Penal Code section 459. The clerk of the co urt shall then forward the amended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections . In all other respects the judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RICHLI J.
We concur:

McKINSTER Acting P. J.

CODRINGTON J.