P. v. Miles
Filed 6/26/06 P. v. Miles 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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. ROBERT LAWRENCE MILES, Defendant and Appellant. | C050420
(Super. Ct. No. CM018397)
|
Defendant Robert Lawrence Miles entered a negotiated plea of no contest to attempted murder. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 664.) In exchange for his plea, additional charges were dismissed. The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of life with the possibility of parole after seven years. Defendant was awarded 993 days of custody credit.
Defendant appeals. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5.)
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 the abstract of judgment. At sentencing, the trial court imposed two restitution fines of $10,000 (Pen. Code, §§ 1202.4, subd. (b), 1202.45), with the latter fine suspended unless defendant's parole is revoked.[1] This order is omitted from the abstract of judgment. We shall direct the trial court to correct the abstract to conform to the oral pronouncement of judgment. (Cf. People v. Rowland (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 119, 123-124.)
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 correct the abstract of judgment to reflect the imposition of a $10,000 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)(1)) and a $10,000 restitution fine stayed unless parole is revoked (Pen. Code, § 1202.45). The court is further directed to forward a certified copy of the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.
We concur:
SIMS , Acting P.J.
HULL , J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Apartment Manager Lawyers.
[1] Although the trial court's order was somewhat unclear (i.e. â€
