Filed 5/26/17 P. v. Garcia CA5



NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

VINCENT MANUEL GARCIA,

Defendant and Appellant.

F073194

(Super. Ct. No. VCF326720)


OPINION

THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. James W. Hollman, Judge.
Victoria H. Stafford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-


Appointed counsel for defendant Vincent Manuel Garcia asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant. We remand for correction and clarification of the abstract of judgment, and we affirm as modified.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On November 25, 2015, defendant pled no contest to possession of a concealed dirk or dagger (Pen. Code, § 21310). Defendant admitted four prior prison term allegations (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), all of which the court struck.
On December 28, 2015, the trial court sentenced defendant to a split sentence of three years, consisting of 18 months in county jail and 18 months of mandatory supervision pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (h), to be served concurrently with the sentence in case No. VCF267440, in which defendant admitted violating mandatory supervision. The court ordered defendant to pay a $500 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a suspended $500 mandatory supervision revocation fine (§ 1202.45), a $40 court security fee (§ 1465.8), and a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). The court awarded no presentence credits because the days were credited against defendant’s term in case No. VCF267440.
After conducting a review of the record, we find two errors to be corrected. The abstract of judgment should reflect that the trial court ordered a suspended $500 mandatory supervision revocation fine pursuant to section 1202.45 in “Case B” (the present case), not “Case C.” In the present case, the fine remains suspended, as mandatory supervision has not yet been revoked (as it apparently has in the other two cases on the abstract of judgment). It appears that the notations for “Case B” and “Case C” were mistakenly interchanged. We also note that the abstract of judgment improperly reflects the credits given in the three cases, including another interchanging of “Case B” and “Case C.” We have found no other arguable errors.
DISPOSITION
The matter is remanded to the trial court with instructions to amend the abstract of judgment to reflect the trial court’s order of a suspended $500 mandatory supervision revocation fine pursuant to section 1202.45 in “Case B” (the present case), not “Case C.” The court is also instructed to determine the credits granted and correct the representation of those credits on the abstract of judgment. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed. The court is directed to amend the abstract of judgment and forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.