Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. CRF06388
BLEASE, J.
Defendant Peter Walter Mayhew choked his live-in girlfriend, hit her in the face, and punched her in the lower left side, breaking her ribs.
Defendant was charged with dissuading a witness (Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (c)(1)) and corporal injury upon a cohabitant (§ 273.5, subd. (a)). It was further alleged that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury under circumstances involving domestic violence in the commission of the corporal injury offense. (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)).
Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Defendant pled no contest to corporal injury upon a cohabitant and admitted the great bodily injury enhancement in exchange for dismissal of the remaining count. The trial court denied probation and sentenced defendant to seven years in state prison, consisting of three years (the middle term) for corporal injury upon a cohabitant, plus a consecutive four years (the middle term) for the great bodily injury enhancement. Defendant was also awarded 164 days of presentence custody credit (143 actual days and 21 good conduct) (§ 2933.1); and ordered to pay a $1,400 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $1,400 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45), and a $20 court security fee (§ 1465.8).
Defendant appeals. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
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. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
We note an error in the abstract of judgment. The abstract of judgment erroneously reflects that defendant’s presentence custody credits were calculated pursuant to section 4019. Because defendant was convicted of a violent felony within the meaning of section 667.5, the trial court properly calculated his credits pursuant to section 2933.1. (§§ 667.5, subd. (c)(8) [designating “[a]ny felony in which the defendant inflicts great bodily injury on any person other than an accomplice which has been charged and proved as provided for in Section 12022.7” as a violent felony]; § 2933.1.) Thus, the abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect that defendant’s presentence custody credits were calculated pursuant to section 2933.1, not section 4019.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to amend the abstract of judgment to reflect that defendant’s custody credits are calculated in accordance with section 2933.1, not section 4019. The trial court is further directed to send a certified copy of the amended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
We concur: SCOTLAND, P. J., DAVIS, J.