People v. Givens

         NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. TA091721. Arthur M. Lew, Commissioner.

         John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

          RUBIN, ACTING P. J.

          On December 1, 2006, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s deputies executed a search warrant on a detached garage at a Compton residence. When the deputies arrived, they found appellant Richard Givens, who was named in the warrant, inside the garage and took him into custody. The deputies searched the garage, which had been converted into living quarters with a kitchen, bathroom, living room, and bedroom. They also searched a Dodge vehicle that appellant’s girlfriend owned and appellant often drove, parked outside the garage. Inside the garage, deputies found on a bedroom dresser and in the living room several pieces of mail addressed to appellant. In addition, they found identification cards with appellant’s name. They also discovered in the bedroom a nine-millimeter Glock handgun and in the living room an assault weapon hidden behind a couch. (Appellant was, however, acquitted of any crimes involving these weapons.) In the glove compartment of the Dodge, they found appellant’s driver’s license, a Ruger handgun, and ammunition.

          Appellant’s grandmother testified she lived in the main residence in front of the garage. Both she and her daughter, who was appellant’s mother, testified appellant’s mother lived in the garage with her boyfriend, and that appellant lived elsewhere with his girlfriend. Appellant’s girlfriend and her mother testified to the same effect. Deputies found, however, only men’s clothing in the garage, and did not find any distinctively feminine items such as women’s clothing or makeup.

          The People charged appellant with being an ex-felon in possession of a firearm for the Glock handgun found in the bedroom and with possession of an assault weapon for the rifle discovered behind the couch. The People also charged appellant with unlawful possession of ammunition and for being an ex-felon in possession of a firearm for the ammunition and handgun discovered in the Dodge’s glove compartment. Finally, the People alleged appellant committed all the offenses for the benefit of and in association with a street gang.

          Appellant pleaded not guilty. Appellant’s first jury trial ended with the jury unable to reach a verdict on any counts, although for three of the counts a majority of jurors favored conviction. But, as to the fourth count of being an ex-felon in possession of the Glock handgun, the jury favored acquittal by 11 to 1, and the court dismissed that count in the interests of justice.

          Appellant was tried before a second jury. This jury convicted him of unlawful possession of ammunition and of being an ex-felon in possession of a handgun for the items found in the Dodge’s glove compartment. The jury acquitted him, however, of possessing the assault weapon discovered behind the couch. The jury also found the gang allegations not true.

         The court sentenced appellant to state prison. It imposed the mid-term of two years for both convictions, and ordered them to run concurrently. The court also awarded appellant 67 days of presentencing custody credit, consisting of 45 days actual custody and 22 days good time/work time.

         Appellant filed a notice of appeal. We appointed appellate counsel. On September 30, 2008, counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, stating he could not find colorable issues to argue on appeal. The next day, the clerk of this court sent a letter to appellant informing him he had 30 days to file a brief or letter raising any issues he wanted us to consider. He has not filed any such letter or brief.

         We have reviewed the record and find no arguable issues for appeal. We did discover, however, that a shorthand description by the superior court clerk on the abstract of judgment misdescribes appellant’s conviction for unlawful possession of ammunition. The entry accurately cites Penal Code section 12316(b), but inaccurately describes the crime as unlawful ownership or possession of a firearm (the notation reads “UNLAW OWV/POSSESS FIREARM”). Accordingly, we direct the clerk of the superior court to amend the description by substituting the word “ammunition” for “firearm.”

         DISPOSITION

         As amended, we affirm the judgment.

         WE CONCUR: FLIER, J., BIGELOW, J.