Filed 8/4/17 P. v. Luna 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

MICHAEL ANTHONY LUNA,

Defendant and Appellant.

F073703

(Super. Ct. No. F15903827)


OPINION

THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Alvin M. Harrell III, Judge.
Carol Foster, 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 Michael Anthony Luna 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 find no arguable issues, but remand for correction of the abstract of judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On June 18, 2015, defendant carjacked a man who had just parked his vehicle in an apartment complex parking lot.
On June 19, 2015, defendant got into a running vehicle, whose driver was standing nearby, and drove away in it.
Later the same day, defendant carjacked a woman who was putting her children into her running vehicle in front of her residence. He later crashed the vehicle into a garage and fled the scene on foot.
On June 23, 2015, the Fresno County District Attorney charged defendant with various charges (the facts above reflect only three of them).
On January 19, 2016, the trial court heard and denied defendant’s Marsden motion for substitute appointed counsel.
On February 9, 2016, defendant pled no contest to two counts of carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a); counts 1 & 3), unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count 8), and misdemeanor hit and run driving (Veh. Code, § 20002, subd. (a); count 12). As part of the negotiated plea, the remaining eight counts were dismissed and the trial court indicated a sentencing lid of six years eight months.
On May 3, 2016, the trial court sentenced defendant to five years four months as follows: the low term of three years on count 1, a consecutive term of one year eight months (one-third of the midterm) on count 3, a consecutive term of eight months (one-third of the midterm) on count 8, and a concurrent jail term of 180 days on count 12. The court awarded 320 days of actual custody credits and 48 days of conduct credit pursuant to section 2933.1, for a total of 368 days. The court ordered defendant to pay a $1,500 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $1,500 suspended parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45), a $160 ($40 per conviction) court security fee (§ 1465.8), and a $120 ($30 per conviction) criminal conviction assessment fee (Gov. Code, § 70373).
On May 6, 2016, defendant filed a notice of appeal, stating that the “appeal is based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).)”
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel or any other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. We determine, however, that a correction is required in the abstract of judgment to thoroughly reflect the orders of the trial court.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed, but the matter is remanded for correction of the abstract of judgment to reflect that the trial court ordered a $160 court security fee (Pen. Code, § 1465.8) and a $120 criminal conviction assessment fee (Gov. Code, § 70373). The trial court is directed to forward certified copies of the amended abstract of judgment to the appropriate entities.