P. v. Buetler























Filed 7/10/13 P.
v. Buetler 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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

(Glenn)

----






>

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHASITY LYNN BUETLER, Defendant and Appellant.

C072687 (Super. Ct. No. 12SCR07774)

About 11:13
p.m. on June 2, 2012, href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Glenn County
Deputy Sheriff Barry Corbin and Detective Dan Blair were on patrol in
Afton. Thefts of fuel and equipment had
been recently reported in the agricultural area. The officers noticed a pickup truck without a
front license plate and turned to follow.
The truck sped away and the officers activated overhead lights. The truck failed to stop immediately and
proceeded to turn on a gravel road. It
finally stopped. Deputy Corbin
recognized the truck as matching the description of a truck related to the
thefts in the area. Defendant Chasity
Lynn Buetler was driving. She was on
parole. Morgan Marengo sat in the
passenger seat. Bolt cutters were on the
ground next to the truck. Marengo denied
knowing anything about the bolt cutters.
In the truck bed, Deputy Corbin noticed a large diesel-type pump with
diesel fuel leaking from it, a metal fuel tank, and pieces of hose. Deputy Corbin contacted a victim of several
thefts. The victim reported that his
cousin had a pump that matched the description.
Deputy Todd Ross went to the cousin’s property and discovered that a
pump was missing and a padlock had been cut.
Defendant and Marengo were arrested.
The victim identified the metal fuel tank as belonging to him. The fuel tank worth $800 had been taken
several days before the officers arrested defendant and her cohort. The cousin identified the fuel pump worth
$900 as belonging to him.

Defendant
pled no contest to an added count of grand theft and admitted two prior prison
term allegations (1995 receiving stolen property and 1998 possession of a
controlled substance) in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts and
allegations.

The court
sentenced defendant to a term of five years, two years to be served in county
jail and a suspended three years on mandatory supervision pursuant to Penal
Code section 1170, subdivision (h)(5)(B).
The court awarded 151 actual days and 151 conduct days for a total of
302 days of presentence custody credit.

Defendant
appeals. Her request for a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">certificate of probable cause was
denied.

We
appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets
forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and
determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)
Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental
brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no
communication from defendant.

We note an
error in the award of presentence custody
credit. The trial court awarded 151
actual days in custody and then stated, it was “giving [defendant] an extra
day” for 151 conduct days for a total of 302 days of presentence custody
credit. Defendant committed her offense
on June 2, 2012. At the time of
defendant’s offense, Penal Code section 4019 had been amended to provide two
days of conduct credit for every two days of actual custody credit and applies
to prisoners who are confined for a crime committed on or after October 1,
2011. (Pen. Code, § 4019, subds.
(f), (h).) Defendant should have
received 150 conduct days for a total of 301 days of presentence custody credit
(151 actual days divided by two, multiplied by two, equals 150, no rounding up;
see In re Marquez (2003)
30 Cal.4th 14, 25-26). We will
modify the judgment accordingly.

Having
undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no other arguable error
that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The
judgment is modified, changing conduct credit to 150 days for a total of 301
days of presentence custody credit. The
trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment accordingly
and to forward a certified copy to the county jail. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.







ROBIE , J.







We concur:







RAYE , P. J.







NICHOLSON , J.