The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robie, J.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
On March 1, 2010, defendant Nathaniel Opondo Hubbert pled no contest to violations of unlawful taking or driving of a vehicle and evading a police officer in return for an agreement to a maximum state prison sentence of three years eight months and the dismissal of other counts.
On April 12, 2010, the trial court sentenced defendant to three years eight months in state prison. The court awarded defendant 540 days of presentence custody credit (270 actual days and 270 conduct days). The court also ordered defendant to pay a $1,200 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)) and a $1,200 suspended parole revocation fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.45).
According to the probation report and the People's statement at the time of entry of defendant's plea, on July 17, 2009, an Auburn police officer contacted Destiny B. regarding a stolen vehicle report. As they spoke, she saw a vehicle traveling on a nearby highway and said "That's him," and pointed at the vehicle driven by defendant. The officer got into his patrol car, pursued defendant, and signaled him to stop by turning on the patrol car's lights. Defendant continued to speed away, reaching speeds of around 100 miles per hour and running a red light. After defendant was stopped and arrested, Destiny B. identified the vehicle he had been driving as hers and said he had taken it from her without her permission.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
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. 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.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
However, we note two clerical errors in the abstract of judgment. The abstract incorrectly shows defendant's name as "Nathaiel Opondo Hubbert." Defendant's true name, as reflected in the record on appeal, is "Nathaniel Opondo Hubbert." Also, the court orally ordered defendant to pay $350 (not $300 as reflected on the abstract) for the probation presentence report. We shall remand with directions that the trial court prepare an amended abstract of judgment.
The matter is remanded to the trial court with directions to prepare an amended abstract of judgment: 1) that reflects defendant's true name; and 2) corrects the amount the court orally ordered for the probation presentence report to $350 and to forward a certified copy of the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
We concur: NICHOLSON, Acting ...