P. v. Thompson
Filed 7/5/06 P. v. Thompson 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
(Yolo)
----
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DANIEL LAMONT THOMPSON, Defendant and Appellant. | C051315
(Super. Ct. No. 054331)
|
Defendant Daniel Lamont Thompson entered a negotiated plea of no contest to vehicle theft or unauthorized use of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and evading an officer with recklessness (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)), and admitted a strike prior (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)-(i)), in exchange for a stipulated state prison sentence of five years four months.
The trial court sentenced defendant accordingly to the midterm of two years for the vehicle theft offense and a consecutive one-third the midterm, or eight months, for the evading offense, doubled for the strike prior, for an aggregate term of five years four months. The court also imposed a restitution fine of $200 (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)) and suspended an additional restitution fine in the same amount pending successful completion of parole (Pen. Code, § 1202.45). The court awarded 45 days of presentence custody credit.
Defendant appeals.[1] His request for a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, § 1237.5) was denied.
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 elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant.
We note an error in preparation of the abstract of judgment and minute order. The trial court orally awarded 31 actual days and 14 conduct days for a total of 45 days of presentence custody credit. The trial court's oral award is correct. (People v. Smith (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 523, 527; People v. Bobb (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 88, 97, disapproved on another point in People v. Barton (1995) 12 Cal.4th 186, 198, fn. 7.) The abstract and minute order reflect 31 actual days but erroneously reflect 15 conduct days for a total of 46 days of presentence custody credit. We will order correction of the abstract and minute order accordingly.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment and minute order reflecting 31 actual days and 14 conduct days for a total of 45 days of presentence custody credit and to forward a certified copy of the corrected abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
RAYE , J.
We concur:
SCOTLAND , P.J.
NICHOLSON , J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Real Estate Lawyers.
[1] This court granted defendant's motion for relief from untimely filing of his notice of appeal.
