P. v. Woodall
Filed 2/7/13 P. v. Woodall 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
(Yolo)
----
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JAMES DAVID WOODALL,
Defendant and Appellant.
C071850
(Super. Ct. No.
CRF121726)
Appointed
counsel for defendant James David Woodall has asked this court to review the
record to determine whether there exist any arguable
issues on appeal. (
436 (Wende).) We shall order the abstract of judgment
amended to correct a minor error in pronouncement of sentence and affirm the
judgment.
On April 27, 2012, police officers
responded to a fight between defendant and his stepfather. Defendant barricaded himself inside his
stepfather’s home, told officers he would burn the house down, and set fire to
clothes and papers, causing damage to the floor and carpet. Defendant pled no contest to arson of an
inhabited structure (Pen. Code,
name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]
§ 451, subd. (b)).
The trial
court sentenced him to a stipulated term of five years in state prison, imposed
various fines and fees, and awarded him 55 days of presentence credit--48
actual and 7 conduct. Defendant
appeals. He did not obtain a
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. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.)
Counsel advised defendant of the right to file a supplemental brief
within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we
have 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. However, we observe that the trial court
specified the incorrect statutory basis (§ 4019) for limiting defendant’s
conduct credit, and that error is also reflected in the abstract of
judgment. Although the trial court
correctly limited defendant’s presentence conduct credits to 15 percent of his
actual time in custody due to his violent felony conviction (see § 667.5,
subd. (c)(10)), the correct statutory authority for this limitation is section
2933.1. We shall order the trial court
to amend the abstract of judgment to reflect the proper legal basis for its
decision.
The
judgment is affirmed. The trial court is
directed to prepare an amended
abstract of judgment consistent with this opinion and
forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation.
DUARTE , J.
We concur:
RAYE , P. J.
BUTZ , J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] Further undesignated statutory references are
to the Penal Code.
