Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. CRF10-550
NICHOLSON, Acting P. J.
In November 2010, a Yuba County Sheriff’s deputy noticed an evidently disabled pickup truck near the driveway of a residence. The truck’s roof, lumber rack, stereo, compact disc changer, amplifier, speakers, tailgate and toolbox had been removed. A record check revealed that the truck had been reported stolen. Defendant Brandi Michelle Azevedo walked from the driveway and spoke with the deputy, denying any knowledge of the truck. The deputy asked her about a nearby backpack, which she admitted was hers. In an ensuing search of the stolen truck, the deputy located a notebook that bore defendant’s name and signature and contained a description of the truck with “$250” written next to it. The notebook also included the description of another truck with “$200” written next to it. Defendant conceded that she had been in the truck and claimed that a male and a female (perhaps the actual thieves) had fled from the truck when the deputy sheriff passed their location.
Because the matter was resolved by plea, our statement of facts is taken from the probation officer’s report and the prosecutor’s statement of factual basis.
Defendant pleaded no contest to receiving a stolen vehicle. (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a).) In exchange, counts of driving or taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and possession of less than an ounce of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (b)) were dismissed. She was sentenced to state prison for three years, awarded 39 days’ custody credit and 38 days’ conduct credit, ordered to make restitution to the victim in the amount of $300 (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)), and ordered to pay a $600 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $600 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked (§ 1202.45), a $40 court security fee (§ 1465.8), and a $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). A $40 theft fine plus penalty assessments was imposed and later stricken. The court recommended that defendant be placed in the Pregnant and Parenting Women’s Alternate Sentencing Program. (§ 1174.4.)
Further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
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 that defendant is entitled to one additional day of conduct credit pursuant to section 2933, subdivision (e)(1).
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 modified to award defendant one additional day of conduct credit. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment and to forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
We concur: BUTZ, J. MURRAY, J.