P. v. Lira
Filed 9/23/13 P. v. Lira 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
(Butte)
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ANTHONY JOSEPH LIRA,
Defendant and Appellant.
C073532
(Super. Ct. No.
CM036934)
On July 8, 2012, an officer searched
defendant Anthony Joseph Lira and found a pipe containing a usable amount of
methamphetamine.
title="">[1] When advised that bringing drugs into a jail
would result in another felony charge, defendant gave up two baggies each
containing 0.2 grams of methamphetamine.
Defendant
pleaded no contest to possession of
methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and
admitted a prior serious or violent felony conviction (Pen. Code,
§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) for the sole purpose of ineligibility for
local custody (§ 1170, subd. (h)).
In exchange, a strike allegation and a prior prison term allegation were
dismissed.
Defendant
was sentenced to prison for a stipulated upper term of three years, awarded two
days’ custody credit and two days’ conduct credit, and ordered to pay a $280
restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $280 restitution fine suspended unless
parole is revoked (§ 1202.45), a $195 laboratory analysis fee (Health
& Saf. Code, § 11372.5, subd. (a)) including penalty assessments, a
$585 drug program fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.7) including
penalty assessments, a $40 court operations fee (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)),
and a $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373).
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
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
communication from defendant.
Our review
discloses a minor error on the abstract of judgment. Defendant’s offense was committed in 2012,
not 2011. We direct the trial court to
correct the abstract accordingly.
Having
undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that
would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed. The trial court is
directed to correct the abstract of judgment and to forward a certified copy to
the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation.
BLEASE , Acting
P. J.
We concur:
MAURO , J.
DUARTE ,
J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] Because the matter was resolved by plea and
the parties stipulated that the probation report only address credits, fines,
and fees, our statement of facts is taken from the prosecutor’s statement of
factual basis for the plea.
name="_ftn2" title="">[2] Further
statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
