Filed 7/28/16 P. v. Earl CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

SEAN ALEXANDER E ARL
, Defendant and Appellant. B267761

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA136338 )

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los An geles County. Laura

R. Walton, Judge. Affirmed as modified

.
William L. Heyman , under appoin tment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________2

An information , filed on April 30, 2015 , charged ap pellant Sean Alexander Earl

and two co defendants with three counts of attem pted murder

. The information f urther alleged that the attempted murders were committed willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation within the meaning of Penal Code 1 section 664, subdivision (a); t hat a principal personally and intentionally used and d ischarged a firearm, a handgun, within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivisio ns (b), (c) and (e)(1); and that pursuant to

section 186. 22, subdivision (b)(1)(C), the offenses were c ommitted for the benefit of,

at the direction of, and in association wi th a criminal street gang

. According to the preli minary hearing transcript, the charges were based on

an incident in which the three victims were fired upon as they walked on a street in Compton. At a field show

- up shortly after the shooting, one of the victims identified appellant as one of the men who fired a gun at them

. Appellant plea ded not gui lty. O n the first day of trial, the People struck “willful, deliberate, and premeditate d” from count 1, and with the court’s permission

, amend ed the

informa tion to add a section 1 2 022.5 3, subdivision (b) firearm allegation to count 1

. A ppellant withdrew his plea of not guilty as to coun t 1 and pleaded no contest to one
count of attemp ted murder and a dmitted the firearm allegation

. (Capitalization omitted.)

The court found appellant guilty, found a factual basis for the plea, and dismisse d the

other counts and the allegations. Under the plea agreement , the court sentenced appellant

to a total of 15 years in state prison , consisting of the lower term of five years as to

count 1 plus a consecutive term of 10 years for the section 12022.53, subdivision (b)

enhancement

. The court also imposed a resti tution fine of $300 ( §§ 1202.4, subd. (b), 1202.45), required fees and assessments ( § 14 65.8; Gov. Code, § 70373; ) and awarded appellant pre sentence custody and conduct credits.

On October 4, 2015, appellant filed a no tice of appeal and requested a certificate of probable cause asserting that he should not have been charged with attempted murder

or the firearm enhan cement because t he evidence showed he was not a “shooter in the

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.3

case,” and “no one ev en got shot.” O n October 19

, 2015, the trial court granted the request for a prob able cause certificate. We appointed counsel to represent appellant in the matter. Aft er examining the
record, counsel filed a Wende brief raising no issues on appeal and requesting that we independently review the record. ( People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) On April 16,
2016, we directed appointed counsel to immediately send the reco rd on appeal and a copy of the opening brief to appellant

. We notified appellant that within 30 days from the date of the notice he could submit by letter or brief any ground of appeal, contention or argument he wished us to consider. We receive d no resp onse. Appellant’s plea limits his challenge on appeal

. T he matters that appellant raised in his request for a certificate of probable cause relate to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the charge and the enhancement. An argument that sufficient evidence did not support the conviction , however, is not cognizable on appeal after appellant’s plea, with or without a certificate of probable cause. ( People v. Palmer ( 2013 ) 58 Cal.4 th 110, 114 ;

see People v. Turner ( 1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 116, 125

- 126 [a ppellant’s plea concedes that the prosecution has admissible evidence sufficient to prove the charges and thus waives any right to raise questions about the evidence or have a conviction reviewed on the
merits]. ) A ppellant did not identify any issue with respect to the validity of the plea

or the ci rcumstances related to his plea agreement , nor does any appear in the record

. In addition

, appellant did not list any noncertificate 2 grounds in his notice of appeal nor submit a brief or letter advancing any s uch grounds. Further, our own review has not identified any noncertificate issue warranting appellate review. We are satisfied that appointed cou nsel has complied with his responsibilities

, and

our review of the entire record has disclosed that no argu able issues exist that would result in a disposi tion more favorable to appellant . ( People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th

2 A defendant may obtain review on appeal of so

- called “ noncertificate ” issues which do not require a certificate of probable cause. Noncertificate issues are “[t]he denial of a motion to suppr ess evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5 ” or “[g]rounds that arose after entry of the plea and do not affect the plea’s validity

. ” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(4).)4

106, 109

- 110; People v. Wende

, supra , 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.) In examining the record

in this case, however, we noticed a typographical err or in the abstract of judg ment.

As reflected in the reporter’s transcript and minute order, t he trial court imposed a total

sentence of 15 years in state prison

. The abstrac t of judgment erroneously indicates that

the total time imposed is five years

. W e have inherent power to correct clerical errors in the abstract of judgment. ( People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 .)

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed . The trial court is directed to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment with the corr ec t total sentence of 15 years , and to forward the corrected abstract of judgment to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

.

ROTHSCHILD, P. J. We concur:

JOHNSON, J.

LUI, J.