Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. 06F01200
CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.
In 2005, defendant Nai Loung Saechao and victim Si Saeturn lived together and had a 10-year-old daughter. In June 2005, defendant began a relationship with codefendant Mimi Le. Soon both Saeturn and Le were pregnant by defendant. Saeturn demanded that Le stop seeing defendant and obtain an abortion. Instead, defendant and Le conspired to have Saeturn killed so that they could continue their relationship and start a new family together. Defendant convinced his cousin, codefendant Khae Saephanh, and a friend, codefendant Lo Saephanh, to murder Saeturn. Khae Saephanh obtained a .38-caliber revolver for which defendant later purchased bullets. On the night of December 29, 2005, Khae Saephanh and Lo Saephanh offered a 15-year-old juvenile $400 to commit the murder. As Saeturn left work, the juvenile approached her in the parking lot and shot her in the head and abdomen, killing her instantly. An autopsy revealed that she was carrying a 19- to 20-week-old female fetus, which also died as a result of the shooting.
Because defendant pled guilty, our statement of facts is taken from the prosecutor’s trial brief, which served as the factual basis for the plea.
None of the codefendants at trial is a party to this appeal.
Defendant pled guilty to first degree murder of Saeturn (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189), admitted the special circumstance that she was intentionally killed by lying in wait (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(15)), and admitted an allegation that a principal was armed with a firearm (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)). In exchange, a count of murder of a fetus, a multiple murder special circumstance allegation (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3)), and a count of conspiracy (§ 182, subd. (a)(1)) were dismissed in the interest of justice.
Hereafter, undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Defendant’s oral motion to withdraw his plea was denied. He was sentenced to state prison for a determinate term of one year plus a consecutive indeterminate term of life without possibility of parole, awarded 526 days of custody credit and zero days of conduct credit (§ 2933.2), and ordered to make restitution to the victims of violent crime program and pay a $10,000 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $213.13 booking fee and a $23.50 classification fee.
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.
Defendant’s appellate counsel advised the trial court by letter that defendant is entitled to one additional day of custody credit for the period from his arrest on February 8, 2006, through his sentencing on July 19, 2007. Our record contains no response from the trial court. Counsel’s calculation is correct. We shall modify the judgment to award defendant 527 days of custody credit.
We note two minor errors on the abstract of judgment. In part 1, the abstract states that defendant was convicted by jury rather than by plea. In part II, the $213.13 main jail booking fee is erroneously listed as $213.37. These errors must be corrected when the amended abstract is prepared.
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 modified to award defendant 527 days of custody credit. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment, reflecting that defendant was convicted by plea and reflecting a $213.13 booking fee. A certified copy of the amended abstract shall be forwarded to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
We concur: SCOTLAND, P.J., NICHOLSON, J.