Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. CR024003
BLEASE, Acting P. J.
This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Having reviewed the record as required by Wende, we order a correction to the abstract and affirm the judgment.
Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. 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 of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant.
Defendant Robert Lewis Hopson was charged with two counts of transportation or sale of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a).) As to each count, it was also alleged that defendant had two prior drug convictions (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (a)), a prior strike (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)-(i)), and served three prior prison terms (§ 667.5).
The facts underlying the charges are not contained in the record on appeal.
Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
In exchange for a stipulated term of eight years, defendant pled guilty to one count of selling methamphetamine, and admitted one prior drug conviction and two prior prison terms. The remaining allegations and charges were dismissed.
The trial court imposed the eight-year stipulated term as follows: the midterm of three years for the sale of methamphetamine, one year each for the two prior prison terms, and three years for the prior drug conviction. The trial court also ordered defendant to pay a $200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), another $200 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked (§ 1202.45), a $50 laboratory analysis fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5, subd. (a)) and penalty assessments totaling $105, a $150 drug program fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.7) and penalty assessments totaling $315, and a $20 court security fee (§ 1465.8).
Our review of the record reveals one small clerical error. The trial court initially awarded defendant actual local custody credit of 85 days and local conduct credit of 41 days, for a total of 126 days. In response to defendant’s appellate counsel’s letter to the trial court (People v. Fares (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 954, 958), the trial court properly modified defendant’s local conduct credit to 42 days. (§ 4019, subd. (f).) The second amended abstract of judgment, however, fails to reflect the new total of 127 days. The abstract of judgment must be amended accordingly.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract reflecting a total of 127 days of presentence custody credit and forward a certified copy of the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
We concur: NICHOLSON, J., HULL, J.