IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)
October 17, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
JIMMY HOPKINS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. 11F02474)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Blease , Acting P. J.
P. v. Hopkins
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Defendant Jimmy Hopkins, a registered sex offender, failed to notify the relevant authorities within five days of changing his address.
Defendant pleaded no contest to failure to register as a sex offender (Pen. Code, § 290.018, subd. (b); undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code). Defendant was placed on five years' formal probation under various terms and conditions.
Defendant appeals. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests that this court review the record and determine whether it reflects 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. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant.
We have reviewed the record in its entirety and find only the following error. As a condition of probation, defendant was ordered to serve 365 days in jail, and was given credit for 57 days actually served and 28 days' conduct credit.*fn1 The order of probation does not reflect the custody credit awarded by the trial court. (See § 2900.5, subd. (a) [defendant entitled to conduct credits pursuant to § 4019 against time imposed as a condition of probation].) The trial court shall amend the record to reflect the award of conduct credits.
The matter is remanded to the Sacramento County Superior Court with directions to amend its record to reflect that in addition to the 57 days' credit for actual service defendant received against the 365-day jail term imposed, he is to receive an additional 28 days of conduct credit against that term. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
We concur: HULL , J. DUARTE , J.