Court Opinion

ID: 9388093
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-19 20:03:17.813626+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:17.424662
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/19/23 P. v. Tate 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                                        (Trinity)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                                  C096307

           v.                                                                       (Super. Ct. Nos. 21F162,
                                                                                            19F153)
 RANDALL JOSEPH TATE,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Appointed counsel for defendant Randall Joseph Tate asked this court to review
the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Based on our review of the record, we will direct
the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment. Finding no other arguable error that
would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
                                                             I
         Defendant was charged with sexual intercourse and sodomy of a child 10 years old
or younger by a person older than 18 years old (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (a) - count I)1

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                                             1
and committing a lewd and lascivious act on a child under 14 years old (§ 288, subd. (a) -
count II).
       On February 26, 2020, the trial court found defendant incompetent to stand trial.
On March 23, 2021, the trial court reinstated criminal proceedings.
       Two witnesses testified at defendant’s jury trial. P.L., who was 13 years old
during trial, testified that once during the 2014-2015 school year when he was six years
old, defendant pinned him with one arm behind his back, “stuck his penis inside of
[P.L.’s] butt and thrusted several times.” B.L., P.L.’s mother, testified that defendant was
her brother, who was born in March 1980, and would sometimes stay with her and her
family in 2015. B.L. said around the time alleged in the complaint she would sometimes
leave the kids at home for about 15 minutes to run to the store. B.L. also had surgery
around that time and so she slept a lot due to the effects of pain medication.
       Defendant did not testify or present any evidence.
       On February 9, 2022, the jury acquitted defendant of sodomy of a child under
10 years old (count I) but found him guilty of committing a lewd and lascivious act on a
child under 14 years old (count II).
       On May 5, 2022, the trial court sentenced defendant to the midterm of six years
and imposed a $1,800 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $1,800 parole revocation fine
(§ 1202.45), a $30 conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), and a $40 court
operations assessment (§ 1465.8).
                                              II
       Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and
asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable
issues on appeal. (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 the opening brief.
More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant.

                                              2
       Based on our review of the record, we note that the abstract of judgment must
be corrected. The year defendant committed the crime is listed as 2021, but it should
be 2014. Additionally, the date of conviction is listed as “5/5/22,” but it should be
February 9, 2022. An appellate court may order the correction of clerical errors in the
abstract of judgment even on its own motion, without a request by either party. (People
v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 186-187.) We will direct the trial court to correct the
abstract of judgment.
       Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no other arguable
error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
                                      DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed. The trial court shall correct the abstract of judgment
to state the year the crime was committed as 2014 and the date of conviction as
February 9, 2022. The trial court shall forward a certified copy of the corrected abstract
of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

                                                    /S/
                                                 MAURO, Acting P. J.

We concur:

    /S/
KRAUSE, J.

    /S/
MESIWALA, J.

                                             3