People v. Garcia CA2/7

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent Garcia on appeal. After an examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues. On February 4, 2014 we advised Garcia that he had 30 days to submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. We have not received a response. We have examined the record and are satisfied that Garcia’s attorney on appeal has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and that there are no arguable issues. (See Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 118-119; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) Although the trial court orally struck the one-year prior prison term enhancement (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)), the abstract of judgment erroneously shows the trial court stayed the enhancement. Therefore, we order the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment by deleting the reference to this enhancement. (See People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1, 89; People v. Myles (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1181, 1222, fn. 14.)1

1 According to Garcia’s attorney on appeal, the trial court corrected the error in the abstract of judgment reflecting…