Opinion
C080208
05-16-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GERAD ALLEN VANGRINSVEN, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 62135208)
Appointed counsel for defendant Gerad Allen Vangrinsven asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Based on our review of the record, we will direct the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect the orally-imposed presentence credit. Finding no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
I
The victim paid defendant to do odd jobs for her in May 2014. The following month, defendant asked the victim if he could borrow $100 and the victim gave defendant $100 in cash. However, defendant went to the window of a Safe Credit Union teller and attempted to cash a check purportedly made out to him from the victim in the sum of $110.00. The teller noticed the check was out of sequence and the victim's signature did not match her signature from previous checks. The bank did not accept the check and called the victim. The victim denied writing the check, closed her account and changed her passwords. She also contacted the police and made a report.
A jury found defendant guilty of identity theft (Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (a)) and second degree commercial burglary (Pen. Code, § 459). The trial court found defendant had a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, § 1170.12) and a prior prison term within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). After denying defendant's request to dismiss his prior strike conviction (People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497), the trial court sentenced him as follows: four years (the midterm doubled) for identity theft; the midterm for commercial burglary stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654; a consecutive one year four months for an identity theft conviction in Sacramento County case No. 14F06943; and a consecutive one year for the prior prison term. In addition, the trial court ordered defendant to pay various fines and fees and awarded 81 days of presentence credit (41 actual days and 40 conduct days) in the Sacramento case.
II
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking 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.
Based on our review of the record, we will direct the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect the orally-imposed presentence credit in the Sacramento case. The trial court awarded defendant 81 days of presentence credit in the Sacramento case, but the abstract of judgment does not reflect that credit. The abstract must comport with the oral pronouncement of sentence. (See People v. Rowland (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 119, 123.)
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 a corrected abstract of judgment to reflect the award of 81 days of presentence credit (41 actual days and 40 conduct days) in Sacramento County case No. 14F06943. The trial court is further directed to forward a certified copy of the corrected abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
/S/_________
MAURO, J. We concur: /S/_________
BLEASE, Acting P. J. /S/_________
ROBIE, J.