Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. 04F10415
CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.
In November 2004, Sacramento Police officers observed defendant Kenneth Hill driving a car with a broken taillight. They stopped the car, and an officer noticed a gun protruding from the area of defendant’s right thigh. He was ordered to get out of the car and lie down on the ground. He got down, but then ran and was detained by other officers. A search of the car revealed tar heroin and rock cocaine. A booking search of defendant revealed additional heroin. A loaded gun was found on the route defendant took when he ran from the traffic stop.
Because defendant pled no contest, our statement of facts is taken from the transcript of the preliminary hearing.
Defendant pled no contest to possession for sale of tar heroin (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351) and transportation of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)), and admitted a 1997 mayhem strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). In exchange, three related counts were dismissed.
Hereafter, undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Defendant was sentenced to state prison for a stipulated term of four years eight months consecutive to the term imposed in case No. 04F10832. He was awarded six days of custody credit and one day of conduct credit, and was ordered to pay a $200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4) and a $200 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked (§ 1202.45).
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 in the computation of conduct credit. Neither offense in this case is a violent felony allowing application of section 2933.1. (§ 667.5, subd. (c).) Thus, defendant’s six days of custody credit entitle him to two days of conduct credit. (§ 4019; People v. Smith (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 523, 527.) We shall modify the judgment accordingly.
Our review also discloses that the trial court did not pronounce the court security fee in this case. His two convictions render him liable for a $40 fee. (§ 1465.8.) We shall modify the judgment to impose this fee.
Our review also discloses two errors on the amended abstract of judgment. First, the amended abstract does not list the two $200 restitution fines imposed in this case. Second, the abstract must state whether conduct credit in each superior court case is calculated pursuant to section 2933.1 or section 4019.
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 two days of conduct credit and to impose a $40 court security fee. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare a second amended abstract of judgment, reflecting the two restitution fines and the court security fee imposed in this case and designating whether conduct credit in this case is calculated pursuant to section 2933.1 or section 4019. A certified copy of the second amended abstract shall be forwarded to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
We concur: SCOTLAND, P.J., NICHOLSON, J.