People v. v. Dove

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALISA D. DOVE, Defendant and…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Third District, Yolo

Date published: Mar 29, 2011

No. C065295 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2011)

Opinion

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALISA D. DOVE, Defendant and Appellant. C065295 California Court of Appeal, Third District, Yolo March 29, 2011

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Super. Ct. No. 084523

MAURO, J.

Appointed counsel for defendant Alisa D. Dove asked this court to review the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We find no arguable error and no concerns regarding presentence credits. We will affirm the judgment.

I

Between August 21, 2007, and June 22, 2008, defendant wrote numerous checks to several businesses and individuals on accounts with insufficient funds to cover the checks.

Defendant was arrested and charged with a single count of passing a check over $200 with the intent to defraud in violation of Penal Code section 476a. It was further alleged that defendant was twice previously convicted of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459), a serious felony under Penal Code section 667, subdivision (d).

Defendant pleaded no contest to passing a check over $200 with the intent to defraud. In exchange for defendant’s plea, the People agreed to a three-year, suspended prison term. The trial court accepted defendant’s plea and granted the People’s motion to dismiss defendant’s prior strike convictions. The trial court then sentenced defendant to a suspended three-year prison term, placing her on three years of formal probation and ordering defendant to serve 365 days in the county jail. The court awarded defendant one day of custody credit and ordered her to pay restitution to the victims.

In August 2009, defendant violated the terms of her probation when she was “out of range” for two and one-half hours without permission (apparently defendant was on home detention) and tested positive for amphetamines. Defendant later admitted the violation.

The trial court denied defendant’s request to reinstate probation and imposed the previously suspended prison term. The trial court ordered defendant to pay various fines and fees and awarded her 253 days of presentence credit pursuant to Penal Code section 4019, consisting of 177 days of custody credit and 76 days of conduct credit.

Defendant subsequently requested the trial court recalculate her conduct credits pursuant to “Senate Bill 3x18.” The court denied defendant’s request because she was sentenced prior to January 25, 2010, and “section 4019 is not retroactive.” Defendant renewed her request for additional conduct credits in April 2010. The court granted defendant’s second request and ordered the probation department to recalculate her conduct credits.

Accordingly, the Yolo County Probation Department recalculated defendant’s custody credits and determined she was entitled to a total of 331 days of presentence credit, consisting of 177 days of custody credit and 154 days of conduct credit.¹ The record does not, however, include an amended abstract of judgment. Rather, the trial court sent to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation a memo, signed by the trial court judge, indicating the recalculation of credits.

1 Defendant received no conduct credits while on “home custody.”

Defendant obtained a certificate of probable cause and appeals from her conviction.

II

Appointed 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. (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 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 will, however, direct the trial court to send an amended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation that correctly reflects the custody credits to which defendant is entitled.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed, with the corrected custody credits. The trial court is hereby directed to amend the abstract of judgment according to the trial court’s own recalculation of custody credits and forward the amended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation within 10 days of remittitur.

We concur: BLEASE, Acting P. J., NICHOLSON, J.