People v. Price CA3

Filed 2/21/23 P. v. Price CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C095882

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 21FE002983)

v.

SCOTT RICHARD PRICE,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Scott Richard Price asked this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Our review of the record has disclosed that the trial court failed to impose the required $300 stayed parole revocation restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.45)1 and the amended abstract of judgment failed to properly record the credits for time served attributable to this case. We will amend the judgment to

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

impose and stay this fine, order the abstract of judgment corrected, and affirm the judgment as modified. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The complaint charged defendant with taking and driving a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and several other crimes. Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pleaded no contest to the taking and driving a vehicle count and the remainder of the counts were dismissed. In April 2021, the trial court sentenced defendant to the low term of 16 months in prison in this case (the “983 Case”), concurrent with sentences imposed in two other cases: 20FE010249 (the “249 Case”) and 20FE002590 (the “590 Case”). The trial court imposed a restitution fine of $300 under section 1202.4, subdivision (b), a court security fee of $40 under section 1465.8, a court facility fee of $30 under Government Code section 70373, and ordered restitution in an amount to be determined. At the April 2021 sentencing, the trial court did not impose and suspend a $300 parole revocation restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.45. In November 2021, defendant sent a letter to the trial court indicating he did not commit the crime charged in the 983 Case, although he admitted he had possession of a stolen car that he did not take and that he was under the influence. He further stated he “did not get credit for . . . three cases that are sentenced concurrent.” Defendant filed a notice of appeal on January 26, 2022, without specifying the date of the order or judgment he sought to appeal. He filed a second notice of appeal on February 14, 2022, again failing to specify the appealable order. On February 18, 2022, the trial court issued an order nunc pro tunc to April 30, 2021, correcting the amounts of credit awarded and instructing the clerk to correct the abstract of judgment. We deemed defendant’s February 14, 2022 notice of appeal to be from the court’s February 18, 2022 postjudgment credits order issued nunc pro tunc to April 30, 2021.