Court Opinion

ID: 9943154
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-22 19:03:43.100799+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:15.875710
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/22/24 P. v. Chance 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                     (Shasta)
                                       ----

 THE PEOPLE,

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                                  C098634

           v.                                                                      (Super. Ct. Nos. 17F5886,
                                                                                      19F1132, 19F5154)
 ALLEN GEORGE CHANCE,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Appointed counsel for defendant Allen George Chance 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).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a
disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment. But based on our
review of the record, we will direct the trial court to correct the amended abstract of
judgment to reflect the orally imposed presentence credit.
                                                             I
         Some of the background is taken from this court’s prior decision in People v.
Chance (Nov. 21, 2022, C095645) [nonpub. opn.] (Chance).

                                                             1
       In case No. 17F5886 (case No. 886), defendant pleaded no contest to assault with
force likely to produce bodily injury. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4).)1 The trial court
placed him on probation and imposed various fines and fees. In the ensuing years, the
probation department filed three petitions to revoke defendant’s probation. (Chance,
supra, C095645.)
       In 2019, the People filed a complaint against defendant in case No. 19F1132
(case No. 132) and another complaint in case No. 19F5154 (case No. 154). In case
No. 132, defendant pleaded no contest to infliction of corporal injury on a spouse
(§ 273.5, subd. (a)), burglary (§ 459), and violation of a protective order (§ 273.6,
subd. (b)). In case No. 154, defendant pleaded no contest to infliction of corporal injury
on a spouse (§ 273.5, subd. (a)), criminal threats (§ 422), and assault with force likely to
cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)). The plea agreement provided that in
exchange for his admission that he violated parole in case No. 886, along with his no
contest pleas in case Nos. 132 and 154 and a separate misdemeanor case (case
No. 20M2497), the trial court would again place him on probation and impose a sentence
of eight years four months, the execution of which would be suspended.
       Consistent with defendant’s Cruz/Vargas2 waiver, the trial court ordered
defendant to appear for sentencing on September 3, 2020, and informed him that it could
impose the maximum prison sentence of eight years four months if he failed to appear for
sentencing. On September 3, 2020, appellant failed to appear. (Chance, supra,
C095645.)
       At a subsequent sentencing hearing, the trial court found various aggravating
circumstances applicable, although defendant had only stipulated to three of them:

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247; People v. Vargas (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1107.

                                              2
that his adult convictions were numerous, that he was on probation when he entered
his change of plea, and that his performance on probation had been unsatisfactory.
(Chance, supra, C095645.) In case No. 154, the trial court sentenced defendant to the
upper term of four years for infliction of corporal injury on a spouse, a consecutive eight
months (one-third the middle term) for making criminal threats, and a consecutive year
(one-third the middle term) for assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury. In
case No. 132, the trial court sentenced defendant to a consecutive year (one-third the
middle term) for infliction of corporal injury on a spouse, a consecutive eight months
(one-third the middle term) for second degree burglary, and a concurrent six months for
violating a court order. In case No. 20M2497, the trial court sentenced defendant to a
concurrent six months for violating a court order. And in case No. 886, the trial court
sentenced defendant to a consecutive year (one-third the middle term) for assault with
force likely to cause great bodily injury. It imposed various fines, fees, and assessments.
       This court vacated defendant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing because in
imposing the upper term sentence, the trial court had relied on three aggravating factors
that had not been admitted by defendant or proved as required under section 1170.
(Chance, supra, C095645.)
       On remand, the trial court limited its consideration to the three aggravating factors
to which defendant had stipulated, and found that the upper term was appropriate. It
imposed the same eight year four month sentence as before. The trial court subsequently
awarded 1,516 days of presentence credit (758 actual days and 758 conduct days), but the
amended abstract of judgment does not reflect that award.
                                             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

                                             3
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.
       Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error
that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
       However, based on our review of the record, we have determined that the
amended abstract of judgment must be corrected. The trial court awarded 1,516 days
of presentence credit (758 actual days and 758 conduct days), but the amended abstract
of judgment does not reflect that award. We will direct the trial court to correct the
amended abstract of judgment.
                                      DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare a corrected
amended abstract of judgment reflecting the orally awarded 1,516 days of presentence
credit (758 actual days and 758 conduct days). The trial court shall forward a certified
copy of the corrected amended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation.

                                                     /S/
                                                  MAURO, J.

We concur:

    /S/
HULL, Acting P. J.

    /S/
RENNER, J.

                                              4