(Super. Ct. No. CRF112243)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mauro , 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Appointed counsel for defendant Gregory Cantu asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We will modify the judgment to reflect that defendant is awarded 48 days of presentence conduct credit pursuant to Penal Code section 2933.1,*fn1 not section 4019. We will also direct the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment to reflect the judgment as modified, and to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect orally pronounced fines of $240, not $200, pursuant to sections 1202.4 and 1202.45. Finding no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
Because the matter was resolved by plea, the facts are taken from the probation officer's report. The seven-year-old victim told her mother that defendant (her uncle) made her touch and squeeze his private parts one night while he was baby-sitting her.
Defendant pleaded no contest to lewd acts with a child under age 14 (§ 288, subd. (a)) in exchange for dismissal of counts alleging forcible lewd acts with a child under age 14 (§ 288, subd. (b)(1)) and distribution or exhibition of lewd material to a minor (§ 288.2, subd. (a)), plus dismissal of an unrelated case (No. 11-3102).
The trial court sentenced defendant to the stipulated term of six years in state prison, awarded him 321 days of presentence custody credit and 48 days of presentence conduct credit, ordered him to register as a sexual offender (§ 290), and ordered him to pay a $240 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $240 parole revocation fine suspended unless parole is revoked (§ 1202.45), a $40 court operations fee (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), and a $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373).
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. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant.
Our review of the record indicates that in orally pronouncing sentence, the trial court correctly awarded defendant 48 days of presentence conduct credit (15 percent of his custody credit), but mistakenly described it as section "4019" credit. Defendant's offense is a violent felony, and section 2933.1 limits his conduct credit to 15 percent of his custody credit. (§§ 667.5, subd. (c)(6), 2933.1, subd. (a).) The reference to section 4019 was carried forward to the abstract of judgment, where the box for section 4019 was checked and the box for section 2933.1 was not checked.
We will modify the judgment to reflect that defendant is awarded 48 days of presentence conduct credit pursuant to section 2933.1, not section 4019, and we will direct the trial ...