Filed 8/25/14 P. v. Korol CA4/1
Opinion following rehearing
OPINION ON REHEARING
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D065069
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN310266)
PERRY KOROL,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, K. Michael
Kirkman, Judge. Affirmed and remanded with directions.
Alex Kreit, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In November 2012, Perry Korol entered a negotiated guilty plea to nine counts of
residential burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460; counts 1, 8-15). In August 2013, the court
sentenced him to prison for a stipulated term of eight years eight months: the two-year
lower term on count one; consecutive terms of 16 months (one third the middle term) on
counts 8 through 12; and concurrent two-year lower terms on counts 13 through 15.1
Korol appeals. We affirm the judgment and remand the case for correction of the abstract
of judgment.
BACKGROUND
Korol entered a hotel room, rented by a resident, with the intent to commit theft,
on nine separate occasions.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and
proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to
review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 counsel mentions as possible, but
not arguable, issues: (1) whether the court abused its discretion by refusing to permit
Korol to withdraw his plea on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) whether
the court abused its discretion by denying Korol's request to represent himself at
sentencing; and (3) whether the court abused its discretion by denying his Marsden
motion (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118).
We granted Korol permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has responded
and we have reviewed his brief. A review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders,
including the possible issues listed pursuant to Anders and the issues raised by Korol, has
1 The abstract of judgment erroneously refers to the two-year sentences on counts
13 through 15 as middle terms. We order the abstract of judgment corrected accordingly.
2
disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Korol has been competently
represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to amend the abstract of
judgment to reflect that the two-year sentences on counts 13 through 15 are lower terms
and to forward the corrected abstract to the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation.
McDONALD, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
BENKE, J.
3