People v. Center

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEPHEN ROGER CENTER, Defendant…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Third District, Placer

Date published: May 12, 2008

No. C057258 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 12, 2008)

Opinion

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEPHEN ROGER CENTER, Defendant and Appellant. C057258 California Court of Appeal, Third District, Placer May 12, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Super. Ct. No. 62069344

CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.

In April 2007, when contacted by a law enforcement officer, defendant Stephen Roger Center was found in possession of a usable quantity of methamphetamine.¹

1 Our statement of facts is taken from the prosecutor’s statement of factual basis, which synopsized a Roseville police report. Because defendant pled guilty and was sentenced forthwith, no further development of the facts appears in the record.

Defendant pled guilty to an amended count of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and admitted having served five prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b).)² In exchange, three related counts and enhancements were dismissed.

2 Hereafter, undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

Defendant was sentenced to state prison for a stipulated term of eight years, consisting of the three-year upper term plus five years for the enhancements. He was awarded 124 days of custody credit and 62 days of conduct credit and was ordered to pay a $200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $200 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked (§ 1202.45), and a $20 court security fee (§ 1465.8).

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 of the record discloses a minor error on the abstract of judgment. Defendant’s 62 days of conduct credit are mistakenly listed as 66 days. We shall direct the trial court to correct this error.

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment, reflecting 62 days of conduct credit, and to forward a certified copy of the corrected abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

We concur: SCOTLAND, P.J., NICHOLSON, J.