P.v. Chavez
Filed 5/1/06 P.v. Chavez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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. RONNIE CHRISTOPHER CHAVEZ, Defendant and Appellant. | C049405
(Super. Ct. Nos. CM021907, CM020343)
|
Defendant Ronnie Christopher Chavez pled guilty to two counts of committing corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant in Butte County Superior Court case No. CM021907 and one count of petty theft with a prior in Butte County Superior Court case No. CM020343. Placed on probation for these convictions, defendant sent his wife a letter threatening to kill her if she did not visit him in jail. As a result, in Butte County Superior Court case No. CM022239, defendant pled guilty to a misdemeanor count of stalking, which constituted a violation of probation in cases Nos. CM021907 and CM020343. Defendant was sentenced to five years and eight months for the three felonies. With respect to those convictions, the court imposed or reiterated three $200 restitution fines (Pen. Code,[1] § 1202.4, subd. (b)), matching parole revocation fines (§ 1202.45), three $20 court security fees (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), and a theft fine of $35 (§ 1202.5) payable to the Paradise Police Department. Defendant was awarded 185 days of actual credit and 92 days of conduct credit for an aggregate of 277 days of credit. (§ 4019.)
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief which sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there is any arguable issue 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. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, aside from a $1 reduction in penalties ordered, which we will modify without additional briefing. Any party claiming to be aggrieved by this procedure may petition for rehearing. (Gov. Code, § 68081.)
II
Modification Of Abstract Of Judgment Regarding Theft Fine
The abstract of judgment does not include the required specification of fines, penalties, assessments and fees, which necessitates a modification on our part. As we explained to the Butte County Superior Court in People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200: â€
