People v. Strickland CA3

── People v. Strickland CA3 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 15, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/15/26 P. v. Strickland CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yuba) ---- THE PEOPLE, C102707 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF2401150) v. GEORGE ALLEN STRICKLAND, JR., Defendant and Appellant. Appointed counsel for defendant George Allen Strickland, Jr., asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment. I. BACKGROUND The People charged defendant with elder abuse and battery and alleged defendant had previously been convicted of a serious felony. The People also alleged that six aggravating circumstances applied to defendant’s offenses. Defendant agreed to plead no 1 contest to an amended charge of battery inflicting serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d))1 and to admit that he personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)). In return, the People would move to dismiss the remaining charges and allegations. Defendant also agreed to admit five aggravating sentencing factors applied to the offense and agreed to a stipulated upper-term sentence of four years in state prison. Defendant pled no contest in accordance with the plea agreement, admitted that he personally inflicted great bodily injury, and admitted the five aggravating sentencing factors. Prior to sentencing, the California Victim Compensation Board submitted a request for $2,017.66 in restitution. The trial court sentenced defendant to the stipulated term of four years in state prison and awarded him 300 days of custody credit. The court imposed a $1,200 restitution fine, a suspended $1,200 parole revocation fine, a $40 court operations assessment, and a $30 conviction assessment. According to the reporter’s transcript, the court ordered defendant to pay $2,017.56 in restitution to the California Victim Compensation Board.2 Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal and did not request a certificate of probable cause. 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 The court’s minutes and the abstract of judgment show that the trial court imposed the amount sought by the California Victim Compensation Board, $2,017.66. Because nothing in the record indicates the court intended to reduce the restitution award by 10 cents, we conclude that the minute order and abstract of judgment should control in this situation. (See People v. Smith (1983) 33 Cal.3d 596, 599 [“ ‘whether the recitals in the clerk’s minutes should prevail as against contrary statements in the reporter’s transcript, must depend upon the circumstances of each particular case’ ”].) Accordingly, “[t]he erroneous statement in the reporter’s transcript is of no effect.” (People v. Cleveland (2004) 32 Cal.4th 704, 768.) 2  II. DISCUSSION Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are an