P. v. Costes
Filed 5/4/06 P. v. Costes CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Yuba)
----
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEVEN FRANCIS COSTES, Defendant and Appellant. | C050996
(Super. Ct. No. CRF04710)
|
Defendant entered a plea of guilty to second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) with the understanding he would not be prosecuted for failure to appear (Pen. Code, § 1320, subd. (b)).
The trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for the upper term of three years, awarded 51 days of presentence custody credit, and imposed a $200 restitution fine, a $200 parole revocation restitution fine and a $20 court security fee.
Defendant appeals.
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 opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant.
We note an error in calculation of presentence custody credits. The trial court followed the probation report which contains an addition error with respect to actual days, resulting in a calculation error with respect to conduct days. The credits should be 37 actual days and 18 conduct days for a total of 55 days of presentence custody credit. We will order the judgment modified accordingly. In the interest of judicial economy, we correct this error without first requesting supplemental briefing. Any party wishing to address this issue may petition for rehearing. (Gov. Code, § 68081.)
We also note that the abstract of judgment fails to reflect the $20 court security fee imposed. In addition, the abstract contains an incorrect case number. The correct case number is CRF04710. We will direct the trial court to correct the abstract 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 to provide for 37 actual days and 18 conduct days for a total of 55 days of presentence custody credits. The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment that reflects this change, lists the correct case number (CRF04710) and the $20 court security fee imposed, and to forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.
BUTZ , J.
We concur:
SIMS , Acting P. J.
MORRISON , J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Apartment Manager Lawyers.
