P. v. Coleman
Filed 5/16/06 P. v. Coleman 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
(San Joaquin and Placer)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHRISTOPHER EDDIE COLEMAN, Defendant and Appellant. | C051334 (Super. Ct. Nos. SF095690 & 62-034948) |
In October 2003, defendant Christopher Eddie Coleman pleaded no contest to second degree burglary. (Pen. Code, § 459, 460, subd. (b).)[1] He was sentenced to state prison for three years. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation on various conditions, including service of 300 days of incarceration with credit for 42 days and payment of a $400 restitution fine.
In October 2005, a petition was filed alleging that defendant had violated his probation in that he had been convicted of burglary in San Joaquin County (case No. SF095690). Defendant admitted the violation. The trial court sentenced him to state prison for three years eight months, consisting of the three-year term previously imposed and suspended in the present case, plus an additional consecutive term of eight months in the San Joaquin County case. He was awarded 220 days of custody credit and 110 days of conduct credit. The $400 restitution fine (§ 1202.4) was confirmed and an additional $400 restitution fine was suspended unless parole is revoked (§ 1202.45).
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 discloses two errors on the abstract of judgment. In part 9, both restitution fines in the present case must be listed as $400, not $200. In part 13, defendant's conduct credits must be listed as having been calculated pursuant to section 4019.
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 an amended abstract of judgment correcting the errors discussed above and to forward a certified copy of the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
DAVIS , J.
We concur:
SCOTLAND , P.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.