P. v. Egyed
Filed 7/25/07 P. v. Egyed 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Plumas)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSEPH EDWARD EGYED, Defendant and Appellant. | C054698 (Super. Ct. No. 0633504) |
Defendant Joseph Edward Egyed was employed as a mechanic at a motorcycle dealership. In July 2006, a peace officer encountered him, in an intoxicated condition, about five miles away from the dealership. He pointed to a nearby motorcycle and claimed that he had ridden it there from the dealership. The officer, who knew defendant, also knew that he did not own the motorcycle. Defendant told him that he was working on the motorcycle and was taking it for a test drive. The officer returned the motorcycle to the dealership where the owner confirmed that it had been stolen. Defendant later admitted to a deputy sheriff that the motorcycle belonged to a customer of the dealership and that he did not have permission to drive it.
A jury convicted defendant of unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle. (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a).) He admitted having served a prior prison term. (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b).) He was sentenced to state prison for three years, awarded 194 days of custody credit and 96 days of conduct credit, and ordered to pay a $200 restitution fine (id. 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $200 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked (id. 1202.45), and a $20 court security fee (id. 1465.8).
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.
Our review discloses that the abstract of judgment must be corrected to include the $20 court security fee that was properly imposed by the trial court. (People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200.)
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we 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 correct the abstract of judgment to include the $20 court security fee and to forward a certified copy of the corrected abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
BUTZ , J.
We concur:
DAVIS , Acting P. J.
ROBIE , J.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line Lawyers.
