P. v. Punian
Filed 5/9/06 P. v. Punian 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
(Butte)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. AJAY SINGH PUNIAN, Defendant and Appellant. | C050113 (Super. Ct. No. CM023542) |
Defendant Ajay Singh Punian pleaded no contest to forgery (Pen. Code, § 470, subd. (d))[1] after he attempted to cash a fraudulent check. The trial court sentenced defendant to the midterm of two years in state prison but awarded no presentence custody credit because his pretrial incarceration was also attributable to a parole violation for which parole was subsequently revoked. Defendant appealed, and we appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. Counsel has submitted a brief that states the factual and procedural history of the action but finds no arguable issue on appeal, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
Defendant subsequently submitted a letter to this court in which he asserts that the trial court erred by denying presentence custody credits because his pretrial incarceration was attributable solely to the instant offense rather than a parole violation.
On December 20, 2005, the superior court issued a new abstract of judgment that awards defendant 97 days of presentence custody credit, consisting of the 65 days defendant spent in jail from the date of his arrest through sentencing and 32 days of conduct credits. (§ 4019.) Since the issue defendant raises in his supplemental letter brief has been resolved in his favor, the issue is moot.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The abstract of judgment fails to specify the components of the penalty assessments to the theft fine (§ 1202.5, subd. (a); People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1199-1200.)[2] We will modify the abstract of judgment to specify this information.
Disposition
The judgment is modified as follows: defendant is ordered to pay a $10 theft fine (§ 1202.5, subd. (a)); a 20 percent surcharge ($2) (§ 1465.7, subds. (a) & (c)); a 100 percent penalty assessment ($10) (§ 1464, subds. (a) & (e)); a 10 percent penalty ($1) to implement the DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act (Gov. Code, § 76104.6, subd. (a)); a 70 percent ($7) county penalty assessment (Gov. Code, § 76000); and a 50 percent ($5) state court construction penalty (Gov. Code, § 70372). As modified, the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court is directed to issue an amended abstract of judgment reflecting these changes, and to forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
DAVIS , Acting P.J.
We concur:
MORRISON , J.
BUTZ , J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Apartment Manager Lawyers.
[1] Further undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.
[2] â€
