 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Bright6/7/2002
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Pauline Klepadlo Bright appeals from the revocation of her probation and her commitment to state prison. Appellant's court-appointed counsel has briefed no issues and asks this court to review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
In December 1999, the court sentenced appellant to the aggravated term of four years in state prison for theft or embezzlement from an elder (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (e)). The court stayed execution of sentence for a period of five years on the condition, inter alia, that appellant serve a year in the county jail.
In January 2001, the court modified the terms of appellant's probation following her misdemeanor conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (b)). The court ordered appellant to abstain from the consumption of alcohol and participate in a substance abuse treatment program.
In September 2001, the probation department moved to revoke appellant's probation based on her arrest for being intoxicated in public.
Appellant admitted violating the terms of her probation by consuming alcohol.
The court permanently revoked appellant's probation and imposed the previously stayed four-year prison term for theft or embezzlement from an elder (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (e)). The court granted appellant 496 days' total presentence credit and ordered her to pay an $800 restitution fine.
The abstract of judgment of November 20, 2001 states that appellant is entitled to only 464 days' total presentence credit. Apparently, the court clerk copied the amount of credits determined by the probation department for appellant as of October 23, 2001. Appellant, however, was sentenced on November 14, 2001, and the court orally granted appellant the appropriate number of 496 days' total presentence credit. This error clearly appears to be entirely administrative in nature.
Appellant was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings.
There was no sentencing error.
There are no issues that require further briefing.
The judgment is affirmed. The court is directed to issue a corrected abstract of judgment accurately reflecting the court's determination that appellant is entitled to 496 days' total presentence credit.
We concur:
Marchiano, P. J.
Margulies, J.
|