Court Opinion

ID: 9928101
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-30 20:05:30.828647+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:48:51.415783
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/30/24 P. v. Harvey 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                                         (Yuba)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C098831

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                   (Super. Ct. No. CRF20-00365)

           v.

 JUNIOR GLENOBRIEN HARVEY,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Defendant Junior Glenobrien Harvey appeals after the trial court resentenced him
in two cases after receiving a letter from the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) alerting the court to a possible sentencing error. Defendant’s
appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this
court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal.
(People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)
         After examining the record, it appears the trial court inadvertently failed to dismiss
the remaining charges in one of defendant’s cases after accepting his plea. We shall

                                                             1
modify the judgment to dismiss the remaining counts as contemplated by the parties. We
find no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant
and affirm the judgment as modified.
                                     BACKGROUND
       While driving with his girlfriend in January 2020, defendant punched his girlfriend
in the face after they got in an argument. Defendant’s punch resulted in a bloody nose.1
       Based on the altercation, in February 2020 defendant was charged in Yuba County
case No. CRF2000365 (the Yuba County case) with corporal injury on someone with
whom he was in a dating relationship (Pen. Code,2 § 273.5, subd. (a); count I), false
imprisonment by violence (§ 236; count II), and dissuading a witness from reporting a
crime (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1); count III). He was released on bail.
       In February 2021, while out on bail in the Yuba County case, a jury found
defendant guilty of mayhem (§ 203) in Butte County case No. 20CF03420 (the Butte
County case). He was sentenced in March 2021 to four years in state prison with a stayed
out-on-bail enhancement of two years under section 12022.1.
       In August 2021, defendant agreed to plead no contest to the corporal injury
offense (count I) in the Yuba County case in exchange for a stipulated low term of two
years, to run concurrent to the state prison term defendant was already serving in the
Butte County case. Defendant waived a presentence probation report and requested to be
sentenced at the hearing.
       The trial court immediately sentenced defendant to the stipulated two-year term
concurrent to the in-progress sentence in the Butte County case. The court imposed a
$300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $300 parole revocation restitution fine, which was

1      Defendant stipulated to these facts as the basis for his plea.
2      Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                              2
suspended unless parole was revoked (§ 1202.45), a $30 criminal conviction assessment
(Gov. Code, § 70373), and a $40 court security assessment (§ 1465.8). The court
awarded credits in both cases.
       In January 2023, CDCR notified the trial court that the “[a]bstract of [j]udgment
and/or the [m]inute [o]rder” for the Yuba County case might contain an error or be
incomplete. CDCR noted that the abstract of judgment for the Butte County case
reflected a stayed two-year section 12022.1 enhancement that had never been lifted even
though defendant had pleaded no contest to the corporal injury offense in the Yuba
County case and had been sentenced. CDCR’s letter also noted that the Yuba County
case (designated the primary offense) was imposed concurrently to the term previously
imposed in the Butte County case (designated the secondary offense). “Pursuant to . . .
section 12022.1[, subdivision] (d), ‘[t]he stay shall be lifted by the court hearing the
primary offense at the time of sentencing for that offense and shall be recorded in the
abstract of judgment.’ ” (Underlining omitted.) Citing People v. Hill (1986)
185 Cal.App.3d 831, CDCR stated that if the court determined there was an error, it was
entitled to reconsider all sentencing choices upon resentencing defendant.
       In April 2023, the trial court resentenced defendant. At the hearing, the court
noted that under section 12022.1, subdivision (e), it was error to impose the sentence in
the Yuba County case concurrent to the Butte County case3 and that it also had to lift the
stay on the out-on-bail enhancement in the Butte County case.
       Prior to being resentenced, defense counsel explained that defendant objected to
consecutive rather than concurrent terms, but that defendant declined the trial court’s

3      Section 12022.1, subdivision (e) provides in relevant part: “If the person is
convicted of a felony for the primary offense, is sentenced to state prison for the primary
offense, and is convicted of a felony for the secondary offense, any sentence for the
secondary offense shall be consecutive to the primary sentence . . . .”

                                              3
option of withdrawing from the plea agreement. Counsel orally moved the trial court to
exercise its discretion under section 1385 to strike the Yuba County term that had been
recalculated as a consecutive one year (one-third the midterm) for the corporal injury
conviction. The trial court denied the motion.
       Thereafter, the trial court resentenced defendant to one year on count I in the Yuba
County case to run consecutive to the four-year sentence in the Butte County case; the
trial court also lifted the stay on the two-year, out-on-bail enhancement (§ 12022.1) in the
Butte County case. Defendant’s total aggregate sentence was seven years in state prison.
The court recalculated credits in both cases. Defendant timely appealed without a
certificate of probable cause.
                                       DISCUSSION
       We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening
brief setting forth the facts of the case and requesting that this court review the record to
determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d at p. 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief
within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and
we received no communication from defendant.
       After examining the record, we have discovered a clerical error in the judgment. It
appears the parties contemplated that defendant would plead no contest only to count 1
(the corporal injury offense) in the Yuba County case and that the remaining charges
would be dismissed. After taking defendant’s plea to count I, however, the trial court
inadvertently failed to orally address counts II and III in the Yuba County case.
       As the “court may not proceed as to the plea other than as specified in the
[approved] plea” (§ 1192.5), it follows the trial court’s silence at the sentencing hearing
regarding dismissal of the remaining counts was not an exercise of judicial discretion but,
rather, a clerical mistake in creating a record of the judgment. (In re Candelario (1970)
3 Cal.3d 702, 705.) Accordingly, we will modify the judgment to reflect the dismissal of

                                              4
counts II and III in the Yuba County case. Because the abstract of judgment properly
reflects defendant’s plea to the count I corporal injury offense (§ 273.5, subd. (a)) and no
other counts in the Yuba County case, the abstract of judgment need not be amended in
this regard. The same is true for the sentencing minutes, which already state that the
remaining counts were dismissed.
                                      DISPOSITION
       The judgment in Yuba County case No. CRF20-00365 is modified to dismiss
counts II and III. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

                                                   /s/
                                                  Ashworth, J.*

We concur:

 /s/
Earl, P. J.

 /s/
Renner, J.

*     Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                             5