People v. Baker CA3 ( 2024 )

Filed 1/16/24 P. v. Baker CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Butte)
----
THE PEOPLE, C098305
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22CM02683)
v.
MATTHEW DEAN BAKER,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appointed counsel for defendant Matthew Dean Baker filed an opening brief that
sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine
whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436.) Having reviewed the record as required, we will order a correction to the abstract
of judgment and affirm.
1
FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
On June 1, 2022, defendant used pliers to break into someone else’s building and
ignited a fire inside. Defendant was charged with arson of another’s property (Pen. Code,
§ 451, subd. (d)). After defense counsel declared a doubt as to defendant’s mental
competency, the trial court suspended the proceedings and appointed an expert to
evaluate defendant’s competency to stand trial. At a hearing on September 7, 2022, the
court concluded that defendant was not competent to stand trial. The court placed
defendant with the Department of State Hospitals for treatment.
At a subsequent hearing on February 22, 2023, the trial court found defendant
competent to stand trial and reinstated the proceedings. Defendant pleaded no contest to
the arson charge. The court rejected defendant’s request for the lower term and, after
finding both factors in aggravation and mitigation, sentenced defendant to the middle
term of two years. The court awarded defendant 309 days of actual custody credit and
308 days of conduct credit.
Defendant timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural
history of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there
are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant
was advised by counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the
date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not
filed a supplemental brief.
Our review of the record discloses a clerical error that requires correction. At
sentencing the trial court awarded defendant with 309 actual days credit. The abstract of
judgment incorrectly reflects 609 actual days credit. Accordingly, the trial court must
2
prepare a corrected abstract of judgment reflecting 309 actual days of custody credit.
(People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185.)
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find
no arguable errors that are favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The clerk of the superior court is directed to correct the
abstract of judgment to reflect 309 days of actual custody credit and to forward a certified
copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
HULL, Acting P. J.
We concur:
RENNER, J.
MESIWALA, J.
3