1 Filed 9/3/14 P. v. Rodriguez CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication o r ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)

----

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. JOSE ANTHONY RODRIGUEZ, Defendant and Appellant. C074308 (Super. Ct. No. 10F02760)

Appointed counsel for defend ant Jose Anthony Rodriguez asked this court to review
the record to determine wh ether there are any arguable issues on appeal. ( People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ).) After reviewing the record, we determined the trial court’s probation order is inconsistent with defendan t’s negotiated plea agreement. Accordingly, we remand the matter to strike the great bodily injury enhancement a llegation in accordance with the negotiated plea agreem ent. In all other respects , the judgment is affirmed.
I In February 2010, defendant and his ex-gir lfriend had an argument while inside a car; their two-year-old son was al so inside the car. The argum ent became physical and the exgirlfriend attempted to call the police. When she refused to disconnect the call, defendant punched his ex-girlfriend in the face, then ran from the car.2 Defendant was later arrested and charged with inflicting co rporal injury on the parent of his child. (Pen. Code, § 273 .5, subd. (a).) The Pe ople further alleged that during the commission of his crime, defendant personally in flicted great bodily in jury on his victim. (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, su bd. (e).) Defendant waived his ri ght to a preliminary hearing and pled no contest to the abuse ch arge. In exchange for his plea , the People agreed to dismiss the great bodily injury enhancement allegation. At sentencing, the trial court suspended im position of sentence and ordered defendant to serve five years of formal probation. Pursuant to the terms of defendant’s plea agreement, the court ordered de fendant to complete a 52-week batterers’ treatment program, complete 20 hours of community service, and se rve 120 days in county jail. The trial court also ordered defendant to pay various fines a nd fees, and issued a five-year protective order
for defendant’s victim. In June 2011, the prob ation department filed a petition allegi ng defendant violated the terms of his proba tion. Defendant adm itted violating his probation by failing to complete the required batterers’ treatment progr am. The trial court reinstated defendant’s probation, but ordered defendant to serve anot her 30 days in county jail and reenroll in the batterers’ treatment program imme diately upon his release. In May 2013, the probation department filed a second petiti on alleging defendant again violated the terms of his probation. Specifically, the petition alleged defendant failed to notify the probation department of his wher eabouts. Notice of this petition was mailed to “Jose Rodriguez, General Deliv ery, Sacramento, Ca.” Defe ndant failed to appear on the date listed in the petition; the trial court revok ed defendant’s probati on and issued a bench

warrant. Defendant appeals from the order revoking probation. The trial court denied his request for a certificate of probable cause.
II Appointed counsel filed an ope ning brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks
this court to review the record and determ ine whether there are any arguable issues on3 appeal. ( Wende , supra , 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was a dvised 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 communi cation from defendant. Having undertaken an examin ation of the entire record, we determined the trial court erred by not striking the great bodily injury enhancement allegation at the sentencing hearing. As this was part of the negotiated pl ea agreement, we remand the matter to the trial
court to strike this enhancement a llegation in the probation order.
DISPOSITION
The matter is remanded to the trial court. The trial court is hereby directed to strike the enhancement allegation that defendant pers onally inflicted great bo dily injury on his victim during the commission of his crime. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

HOCH , J.

We concur:

BUTZ , Acting P. J.

DUARTE , J.