Filed 2/26/13 P. v. Farmer CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E056476
v. (Super.Ct.No. FBA1100513)
DANIEL THOMAS FARMER, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. John B. Gibson,
Judge. Affirmed as modified.
Jeanne C. Vanderhoff, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant Daniel Thomas Farmer was charged by information with
discharging a firearm with gross negligence (Pen. Code,1 § 246.3, subd. (a), count 1),
possession of an assault weapon (§ 12280, subd. (b), count 2), and possession of a large
capacity magazine (§ 12020, subd. (a)(2), count 3). Defendant filed a motion to suppress
evidence that was seized after an illegal patdown search. (§ 1538.5.) A trial court denied
the motion. Defendant renewed the motion in conjunction with a motion to dismiss.
(§ 995.) The court denied both motions. Then, pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant
pled guilty to count 3. The court sentenced him to 16 months in county prison and
awarded 116 days of presentence custody credits (58 actual days and 58 conduct credits).
Defendant filed a notice of appeal regarding the denial of the motion to suppress.
We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant was charged with and admitted that, on or about August 20, 2011, he
possessed a large capacity magazine, a felony. (§ 12020, subd. (a)(2).)
DISCUSSION
Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to
represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of
the case and two potential arguable issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying his
1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise
noted.
2
motion to suppress; and (2) whether defendant’s trial counsel provided ineffective
assistance by failing to argue that defendant was illegally detained, and that all evidence
flowing from the illegal detention should have been suppressed. Counsel has also
requested this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which
he has not done.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
Although not raised by the parties, we note one apparent clerical error. Defendant
pled guilty to count 3 on June 7, 2012. The court then asked whether the People
“move[d] to dismiss per [the] plea agreement,” and the People so moved. The minute
order states that the court ordered counts 1 and 2 dismissed, on motion of the People,
pursuant to the plea bargain. However, the plea agreement did not mention the dismissal
of counts 1 and 2. Consequently, when the People moved the court “to dismiss per [the]
plea agreement,” the court did not actually dismiss counts 1 and 2. The record indicates
that the parties intended counts 1 and 2 to be dismissed. It appears to have been an
inadvertent clerical error that the dismissal of counts 1 and 2 was not included in the plea
agreement.
Generally, a clerical error is one inadvertently made. (People v. Schultz (1965)
238 Cal.App.2d 804, 808.) Clerical error can be made by a clerk, by counsel, or by the
court itself. (Ibid.) A court “has the inherent power to correct clerical errors in its
records so as to make these records reflect the true facts. [Citations.]” (In re Candelario
3
(1970) 3 Cal.3d 702, 705.) Accordingly, in the interest of clarity, we will modify the
judgment to explicitly state that counts 1 and 2 are dismissed. We will also direct the
superior court clerk to generate a new minute order reflecting the dismissal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified to expressly state that counts 1 and 2 are dismissed.
The superior court clerk is directed to generate a new minute order reflecting the
dismissal. The clerk is further directed to forward a copy of the new minute order to the
San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department. In all other respects, the judgment is
affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
HOLLENHORST
Acting P. J.
We concur:
McKINSTER
J.
CODRINGTON
J.
4