Filed 4/16/18 P. v. Allen 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Sacramento)
----




THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

GARY ALLEN,

Defendant and Appellant.
C082931

(Super. Ct. Nos. 15F00089, 16FE006613)




Appointed counsel for defendant Gary Allen has 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.) We ordered supplemental briefing regarding the trial court’s apportionment of credits; the parties agree that the abstract of judgment should be corrected to reflect the proper division of credits between defendant’s two cases.
Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment and order the abstract corrected.
BACKGROUND
Defendant pleaded no contest to unlawfully taking or driving a motor vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) in case No. 15F00089 (the car case), and received a split sentence under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h)(5)(B) to a term of five years; the first two years to be served in county jail with the remaining three years to be suspended and served under mandatory supervision by the probation department.
A year later, a petition for revocation of mandatory supervision was filed alleging several violations of the terms thereof, including obeying all laws. Defendant had been arrested for burglarizing his mother’s house.
A jury later found defendant guilty of first degree residential burglary (§ 459) and resisting a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)) in case No. 16FE006613 (the burglary case).
The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 10 years in state prison for both cases. The court imposed the upper term of six years for the burglary, plus a consecutive two years for two prison priors and a concurrent term of 365 days for the resisting offense. Defendant received 148 days of credit for time served and 148 days of conduct credits for a total of 296 days. In the car case, the court imposed a consecutive one year (one-third the midterm) plus a consecutive one-year term for a prison prior. Defendant received 811 days of credit (730 days for jail time, including good time/work time conduct credit, and 81 days on mandatory supervision).
Defendant timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
The original abstract of judgment showed 1,107 days of credit for the car case and no credit for the burglary case. On July 5, 2017, appellate counsel sent a letter to the trial court requesting that the abstract of judgment be corrected to accurately reflect defendant’s personal information as well as the apportionment of credits. Only the former was corrected. (See People v. Fares (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 954, 958 [the defendant may file a motion to correct calculation of custody credits in trial court].)
Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and, pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, requested we review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant requested a 60-day extension of time to file a supplemental brief; we granted defendant an extension until December 18, 2017, to file a supplemental brief. He did not file a brief and has not requested additional time to do so.
Defendant’s request for an extension of time raised the same issues with the abstract of judgment as did counsel’s Fares letter. We ordered supplemental briefing and agree with the parties that the abstract of judgment should be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement of sentence, including the accurate apportionment of credits.
We have undertaken an examination of the entire record and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment consistent with this opinion and provide a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.




/s/
Duarte, J.



We concur:



/s/
Butz, Acting P. J.




/s/
Murray, J.