The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hoch, 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
In June 2010, a dispute occurred between a male adult and a female adult who were in their car.*fn1 The male was later identified as defendant Isaac Colston Martinez, and the female was determined to be a person he had been dating. When the female attempted to leave the car, defendant grabbed her, forced her back inside, and started punching her. Then he dragged her back outside the car and started choking her. An eyewitness shouted for defendant to stop, and the female fled to the eyewitness's house. Police arrived and detained defendant.
Defendant pleaded no contest to kidnapping (Pen. Code, § 207, subd. (a);*fn2 count one) and corporal injury of a former cohabitant (§ 273.5, subd. (a); count six). In exchange, four related counts were dismissed.
Defendant was sentenced to state prison for a stipulated term of four years, consisting of the low term of three years on count one plus one year consecutive on count six; awarded 74 days' custody credit and 11 days' conduct credit;*fn3 and ordered to pay a $400 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $400 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked (§ 1202.45), a $60 court security fee (§ 1465.8),*fn4 and a $60 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373).
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.
Our review discloses a minor error with respect to the amount of restitution fines, an incorrect statutory reference for calculating defendant's local conduct credits, and an incorrect designation of the count six offense. As these three sentencing corrections seem non-controversial, the court has resolved them summarily in this opinion, in the interest of judicial economy. Any party aggrieved by this procedure may petition for rehearing. (Gov. Code, § 68081.)
With regard to the amount of restitution fines, the trial court orally pronounced "a restitution fine of $200 for each felony conviction," and "an additional restitution fine of $200 for each felony conviction, execution of which is suspended while Defendant performs satisfactorily on parole." Because defendant was convicted of two felonies, each fine totals $400, as noted above. However, the court's minutes and the abstract of judgment erroneously list each total as $200, not $400. This contrasts with the court construction fee that was orally pronounced in a similar fashion and is correctly reflected on the abstract of judgment.
Our review also discloses that the abstract of judgment must be corrected to state that defendant's local conduct credits were calculated pursuant to section 2933.1, not section 4019. (§§ 667.5, subd. (c)(14), 2933.1, subd. (a).) We direct the trial court to correct its minutes and the abstract of judgment.
Lastly, our review discloses that the abstract of judgment must be corrected to identify the corporal injury conviction of section 273.5, subdivision (a), as count six, not count two.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a ...