Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Humboldt County Super. Ct. Nos. CR072331, CR066482
SIMONS, Acting P.J.
Pursuant to a plea bargain, defendant Edwin Gail Donahue, Sr., pled guilty in case No. CR072331 to driving under the influence with a prior conviction (Veh. Code, §§ 23152, subd. (a), 23550.5), and admitted a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (d) & (e), 1170.12, subds. (b) & (c).); and pled guilty in case No. CR066482 to escape from jail while charged with a felony (Pen. Code, § 4532, subd. (b)(1)), and admitted a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (d) & (e), 1170.12, subds. (b) & (c).) The cases were combined for sentencing and defendant was sentenced to seven years four months in state prison. Counsel has advised that examination of the record reveals no arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel has informed defendant that he may personally file a supplemental opening brief, but defendant has not done so. We conclude there are no arguable issues and affirm.
Pursuant to the plea bargain the following charges were dismissed: one count of drunk driving with a prior conviction (Veh. Code, §§ 23152, subd. (b), 23550.5), false personation of another (Pen. Code, § 529.3), misdemeanor driving with a revoked or suspended license (Veh. Code, § 14601.2, subd. (a)), and misdemeanor giving false identification to a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148.9, subd. (a)).
By supplemental letter, counsel has advised us that the abstract of judgment incorrectly refers to defendant’s offense in case No. CR066482 as a conviction of Penal Code section “453(B)(1)” rather than Penal Code section 4532, subdivision (b)(1). We agree and will direct the trial court to prepare an amended abstract of judgment. We decline counsel’s request to order that the abstract of judgment be amended to describe this offense as a “failure to return.”
BACKGROUND
The background facts are taken from the preliminary hearing transcript.
On the evening of May 9, 2007, Humboldt County Deputy Sheriff Kastler observed defendant driving a pickup truck at excessive speeds. Kastler executed a traffic stop of the truck. When he approached defendant, Kastler noticed the odor of alcohol emanating from the truck’s cab and observed that defendant’s eyes were red and watery. Defendant said he left his identification at home and identified himself as “Dennis Donahue,” which Kastler suspected was not defendant’s true name. Kastler’s investigation revealed that defendant was wanted for an outstanding warrant for escape from a correctional facility. California Highway Patrol Officer Keller conducted a field sobriety test, which defendant failed, and defendant’s breathalyzer test resulted in a blood alcohol level of .17 or .18.
The background facts are derived from the stipulated factual basis for defendant’s guilty plea.
Beginning July 21, 2006, defendant was in custody for violating Penal Code section 273.5 and was furloughed for seven days. He failed to return, as required, by July 28.
On July 11, 2007, defendant made a Marsden motion (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118) on various grounds including defense counsel had only seen him once and had not talked with him about various legal and factual issues. Following defense counsel’s response, the court properly denied the motion without prejudice, and requested defense counsel to research certain of the legal and factual issues raised by defendant and thereafter to meet with defendant. On July 16, defendant again requested substitute counsel on the ground that defense counsel had not obtained the sentencing transcripts regarding his prior convictions and custody credits, and did not agree with defendant’s understanding that he had a good defense on the escape charge. Defendant also raised an issue going to the possible necessity for the appointment of conflict counsel. Following defense counsel’s response, the court again denied the motion but scheduled a hearing for confirmation of counsel.
On July 23, 2007, defendant again made a Marsden motion asserting that defense counsel had not followed through by visiting him, making motions and retrieving his sentencing transcripts and he and defense counsel did not agree on his defense. On August 3, at the continued hearing on the Marsden motion, defense counsel stated the relevant motions had been filed, he had visited with defendant, and had been unsuccessful in obtaining the transcripts. The court properly denied the Marsden motion.
On August 3, 2007, defendant moved to set aside the information on the ground there was no evidence establishing that defendant was the driver of the pickup truck prior to Kastler’s vehicle stop. The People opposed the motion and it was properly denied.
On August 27, 2007, after proper advisement by the court, defendant agreed to plead guilty to driving under the influence with a prior conviction (Veh. Code, §§ 23152, subd. (a), 23550.5), and admit a prior strike conviction in case No. CR072331; and plead guilty to escape from jail while charged with a felony (Pen. Code, § 4532, subd. (b)(1)), and admit a prior strike conviction in case No. CR066482, in exchange for a total prison term of seven years four months, dismissal of the remaining charges and a requirement that he serve 80 percent of his sentence before being released on parole. The court properly found the pleas knowing, intelligent and voluntary.
In case No. CR072331, defendant was properly sentenced to six years in prison (the upper three-year term doubled) and was properly ordered to pay a $1,200 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)). A $1,200 parole revocation fine was imposed and stayed (Pen. Code, § 1202.45). He was properly granted 111 days of actual credit and 54 days of conduct credit (Pen. Code, § 4019). In case No. CR066482, defendant was properly sentenced to a consecutive 16-month term (one-third the midterm, doubled) and ordered to pay a $300 restitution fine. A $300 parole revocation fine was imposed and stayed.
We conclude defendant was competently represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings. There was no error in the proceedings or the sentence imposed.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. We remand solely to direct the trial court to prepare an amended abstract of judgment correctly referring to the offense committed in case No. CR066482 as Penal Code section 4532, subdivision (b)(1), and to forward a certified copy of the amended abstract to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
We concur. NEEDHAM, J., STEVENS, J.
Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, First District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
Section 529.3 is not contained within the Penal Code. We assume the record’s references to section 529.3 were intended to reference Penal Code section 529, subdivision 3.