Filed 5/21/18 P. v. Farlow 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(El Dorado)
----


THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DEANDREA JOVELL FARLOW,

Defendant and Appellant.


C085682

(Super. Ct. No. P16CRF0334)




Appointed counsel for defendant Deandrea Jovell Farlow asked 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).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
I
Defendant escaped from custody on March 27, 2016. He pleaded no contest to escape from custody (Pen. Code, § 4530, subd. (b)) and admitted a prior strike conviction allegation (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)).
The trial court sentenced defendant to eight months (one-third the midterm of two years) in prison, doubled to 16 months for the prior strike. The sentence was ordered to run consecutive to Sutter County case No. CRF092926. In addition, the trial court awarded defendant eight days of presentence credit and imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $300 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45), a $40 court security fee (§ 1465.8), and a $30 conviction assessment fee (Gov. Code, § 70373).
In 2017 the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) sent a letter to the trial court explaining that at the time of the sentencing in this case, defendant had been serving a prison term in the Sutter County case. CDCR said that pursuant to section 1170.1, subdivision (c), defendant was subject to a full term consecutive sentence because an original term and an in-prison term are not to be merged. CDCR added that because defendant was already serving a prison term, he was not eligible for presentence credit. (In re Rojas (1979) 23 Cal.3d 152.) CDCR suggested the trial court could correct an illegal sentence.
At a subsequent hearing, a deputy public defender noted that CDCR had indicated the sentence was illegal, he had explained the situation to defendant, and defendant was prepared to accept the low term doubled, 32 months consecutive to the Sutter County case. Defendant confirmed his agreement. The trial court vacated the prior sentence and sentenced defendant as follows: 16 months in state prison (§ 4530, subd. (b)), doubled to 32 months for the strike (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)), to run consecutive to defendant’s sentence in Sutter County case No. CRF092926, and with no award of presentence credit.
Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
II
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking 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 of the date of filing the opening brief. We granted defendant’s request for an extension of time to file a supplemental brief, but we received no communication from defendant within the extended time period.
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.




/S/
MAURO, J.



We concur:



/S/
BLEASE, Acting P. J.



/S/
HOCH, J.