Filed 1/23/18 P. v. Giromini CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.



IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Butte)
----




THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JOHN ALAN GIROMINI,

Defendant and Appellant.


C084054

(Super. Ct. No. CM042832)


Appointed counsel for defendant John Alan Giromini has filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).)
Procedural History
On April 30, 2015, defendant John Alan Giromini pleaded no contest to two counts of vehicle theft. (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a).) The court suspended imposition of sentence and granted defendant three years of probation. Defendant was already serving two grants of informal probation for a conviction in Sonoma County. The court ordered defendant to pay restitution, along with various fines and fees. The court also awarded him 51 days of custody credit.
On July 27, 2015, a petition was filed alleging defendant failed to report to his probation officer and failed to obey the law.
On December 1, 2016, defendant admitted to violating his probation by failing to report to his probation officer. The trial court subsequently sentenced defendant to serve an aggregate term of three years eight months in county jail. The court ordered that term to be served in “any penal institution” and to run concurrent to defendant’s sentence in Sonoma County.
The trial court affirmed the prior orders for fines and fees and ordered defendant to pay the previously suspended probation revocation fine of $300. The court also awarded defendant 221 days of custody credit.
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed. To date, defendant has not filed a supplemental brief.
Our review of the record discloses an error at sentencing. The trial court did not impose and suspend a mandatory parole revocation fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.45). We modify to the judgment to impose the fine, and order the abstract of judgment amended to include this fine.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed as modified. The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment reflecting the imposition and suspension of the mandatory parole revocation fine authorized under Penal Code section 1202.45 and to forward a certified copy thereof to the relevant authority.



/s/
HOCH, J.



We concur:



/s/
ROBIE, Acting P. J.



/s/
RENNER, J.