Filed 12/7/05 P. v. Charlie 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
(Mono)
----
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LOUIS ANTHONY CHARLIE, Defendant and Appellant. | C049753
(Super. Ct. No. MFE050522)
|
Defendant Louis Anthony Charlie pleaded guilty to four counts of selling marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11360, subd. (a)) and admitted a prior strike under the three strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and a prior prison term within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). In exchange, the remaining charge and enhancements were dismissed and the court sentenced him to prison for 13 years.
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 elapsed, and we received no supplemental brief from defendant.
Our review of the record discloses errors in the calculation of defendant's presentence credit and in the abstract of judgment. In the interest of judicial economy, we shall order the trial court to correct these errors without first requesting supplemental briefing. Any party wishing to address the issues may petition for rehearing. (Gov. Code, § 68081.)
At sentencing on May 3, 2005, the court failed to award defendant any presentence credit and ordered prepared a â€
