Filed 5/15/17 P. v. Horn 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

KAYLA DANIELLE HORN,

Defendant and Appellant.

F072472

(Super. Ct. No. F15904614)


OPINION

THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Don Penner, Judge.
Stephanie L. Gunther, 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 Kayla Danielle Horn 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.) We advised defendant by letter of her right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief, but this letter was returned to us, unopened and with a label marked “Return to Sender. Unable to Forward.” After reviewing the record, we remand for correction of the abstract of judgment, and affirm as so 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 April 21, 2015, defendant used an elderly victim’s credit card to make purchases without his permission. She committed these crimes while on felony probation in case No. F14902203 for a 2014 conviction for receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a)), a case that also included a conviction for misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)).
On August 10, 2015, defendant pled no contest to two counts of felony identity theft (§ 530.5, subd. (a); counts 1 & 6) and one count of misdemeanor theft from an elder or dependent adult (§ 368, subd. (d)(2); count 3). The trial court determined that the pleas constituted a violation of defendant’s 2014 probation, and it revoked probation.
On September 8, 2015, the trial court sentenced defendant to concurrent terms of 16 months in jail on the two felony identity theft counts. The court granted credit for time served on the misdemeanor theft count. The court ordered defendant to pay victim restitution, a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $120 court security fee (§ 1465.8), and a $90 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). The abstract of judgment reflected the court security fee as $200 and the criminal conviction assessment as $190. For the violation of probation case, the court imposed another concurrent 16 month term, lifted the suspension on the probation revocation fine (§ 1202.44), and stated that all other fines and fees imposed at the grant of probation would remain in effect.
Appellate counsel submitted a Fares/Clavel letter to the trial court, requesting that the court correct the $190 criminal conviction assessment to $150. In response, the trial court issued an amended abstract of judgment reflecting this change.
After conducting a review of the record, we find only one error to be corrected. The abstract of judgment should reflect that the court ordered restitution to the victim under section 1202.4, subdivision (f). 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 restitution to the victim under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (f), and to forward a certified copy of the amended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed.