IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte)
January 4, 2012
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
DANIEL STEVEN ELLIS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. CM034227)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robie , J.
P. v. Ellis
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Daniel Steven Ellis repeatedly and routinely molested his five-year-old victim. On March 29, 2011, he pled no contest to committing lewd acts with a child under the age of 14. In exchange for his plea, an additional count for continuous sexual abuse was dismissed with a Harvey*fn1 waiver.
After ordering and reviewing a Penal Code section 288.1 report by Daisy K. Switzer, Ph.D., and the probation report, the trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term of eight years in state prison. The trial court also imposed fines and fees including a $1,600 restitution fine, a suspended $1,600 parole revocation fine, a $300 sex offender fine along with $780 in related assessments, a $40 court security surcharge, a $30 criminal conviction assessment fee, and victim restitution in an amount to be determined. Defendant was awarded 48 actual days and 7 conduct days (Pen. Code, § 2933.1) for a total of 55 days of presentence custody credit.
Defendant appeals. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5.)
Counsel 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.) 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.
We have reviewed the record in its entirety and find only one clerical error. Included in the imposed fines and fees was a $30 criminal conviction assessment fee (Gov. Code, § 70373). That fee was inadvertently omitted from the abstract of judgment. We shall direct the court to prepare a corrected abstract.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to correct the abstract of judgment and to forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
We concur: NICHOLSON , Acting P. J. BUTZ , J.