Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. 07F1840
CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.
In April 2007, defendant Ruby Jane Epperson pled no contest to unlawful use of another person’s identifying information (identity theft) (Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (a)), second degree burglary (§ 459) and fraudulent use of an access card (§ 484g), and admitted having served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), in exchange for an agreement that she would receive a sentence of five years eight months in state prison. The charges stemmed from an incident in which credit cards and checks were stolen from the victim’s residence, after which the credit cards were used to purchase merchandise.
Hereafter, undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Defendant, who sold one of the items that had been purchased with the stolen credit card, and two others were identified as being responsible for the thefts.
At defendant’s sentencing hearing, she admitted an additional prior prison term in order to arrive at the agreed-upon sentence. In accord with the plea agreement, the trial court denied probation and sentenced defendant to a term of five years eight months in state prison, consisting of an upper term of three years for identity theft, a consecutive term of eight months (one-third the middle term) for second degree burglary, a concurrent term of two years for fraudulent use of an access card, and a consecutive term of one year for each of defendant’s two prior prison terms. Custody credits were assessed at 67 actual days plus 32 days conduct credits for a total of 99 days.
The abstract of judgment contained a clerical error stating that defendant had served 678 actual days in custody but accurately reported the total custody credits.
Pursuant to a motion filed by defendant several months later, her custody credits were adjusted to reflect 106 actual days plus 52 days conduct credits for a total of 158 days.
Defendant appealed.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, requesting the court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. 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 undertaken an independent examination of the entire record in this matter and note that it does not contain an amended abstract of judgment reflecting the adjusted custody credits awarded to defendant pursuant to her motion. Accordingly, we shall direct the trial court to prepare an amended abstract of judgment with the correct custody credits.
We find no other arguable error.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment reflecting the updated custody credits and to forward a copy thereof to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
We concur: BLEASE, Acting P. J., MORRISON, J.