P. v. Stevenson
Filed 7/27/06 P. v. Stevenson CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Yuba)
----
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL EDMOND STEVENSON, Defendant and Appellant. | C051670
(Super. Ct. No. CRF05-709)
|
Defendant Michael Edmond Stevenson pled guilty to manufacturing methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379.6, subd. (a)) and was sentenced to the upper term of seven years in state prison. He was ordered to pay a $400 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)),[1] a $400 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45), a $20 court security fee (§ 1465.8) and a $175 criminal laboratory analysis fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5, subd. (a)). The trial court declined to award defendant any credit for time served against his sentence in this case because that time already had been credited against his sentence for a parole violation.â€[2]
Defendant appeals. His request for a certificate of probable cause was denied. (§ 1237.5.)
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. 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. (People v. Wende (1979) 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 of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant.
While this appeal was pending, defendant requested the trial court amend the abstract of judgment to separately list the base fine imposed pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11372.5 and the additional penalty assessments imposed, rather than lumping them together as one lump sum as was done here. There is no evidence in the record that the trial court responded to this request.
â€
