P. v. Soto
Filed 5/17/06 P. v. Soto 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
(Sacramento)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANGEL SOTO, Defendant and Appellant. | C049420 (Super. Ct. No. 03F10936) |
A jury convicted defendant Angel Soto of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (a)‑ ‑ count one),[1] sexual battery (§ 243.4, subd. (a)‑ ‑ count two), forcible rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2)‑ ‑ count three), forcible sodomy (§ 286, subd. (c)(2)‑ ‑ count four), and false imprisonment (§ 236‑ ‑ count five), and found that he committed counts three and four during the commission of a burglary (§ 667.61, subd. (d)(4)).
Defendant was sentenced to state prison for 25 years to life with the possibility of parole on count three plus a six-year consecutive sentence on count four. Sentence on the remaining counts was stayed pursuant to section 654. Defendant was awarded 464 days of custody credit and 69 days of conduct credit. He was ordered to make restitution to the victim and to pay a $600 fine (§ 243.4), a $4,000 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $4,000 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked (§ 1202.45), a $10 crime prevention program fee (§ 1202.5), a $20 court security fee (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), and jail booking and classification fees.
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 of the record reveals that defendant is entitled to one additional day of presentence credit. Following three days of custody in Kern County, he was in custody in Sacramento County from December 27, 2003, through April 1, 2005, a period of 462 days, not the 461 days calculated by the probation department. We shall modify the judgment to award him 465 days of actual custody credit, for a total of 534 days.
This modification does not affect defendant's conduct credit. The amended abstract of judgment should indicate that conduct credit was calculated pursuant to section 2933.1.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified to award defendant 465 actual days of custody credit. On the abstract of judgment at item 13, the conduct credit should be marked as pursuant to section 2933.1. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment and to forward a certified copy of the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
BUTZ , J.
We concur:
SCOTLAND , P. J.
DAVIS , J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.
Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Apartment Manager Lawyers.
[1] Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
