HULL, J.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 15F04125)
Appointed counsel for defendant, Jerred Lance Passmore, has asked this court to review the record to determine whether there exist any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
I
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
The People's complaint alleged that on or about July 11, 2015, defendant committed robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211 [further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code]. The complaint also alleged that defendant was ineligible to be sentenced for a term in county jail (§ 1170, subd. (h)(3)) and that he had suffered a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12).
On August 27, 2015, defendant pleaded no contest to the robbery count and, in exchange, the People dismissed the prior strike allegation. The parties stipulated that the factual basis for the plea was that: "On or about July 11, 2015 in the County of Sacramento, the defendant, Jerred Passmore, did commit a felony; namely, a violation of Section 211 of the Penal Code, robbery of second degree, in that the defendant did unlawfully and by means of force and fear take personal property from the immediate presence of Joseph Adams.
"In this case the defendant and the victim knew each other. Several days before, the defendant had sold a bike to the victim. And on this day, the defendant walked up to the victim with a knife and said, where is my bike? He said he was going to stab the victim if he didn't give him his bike back, and the victim was scared and started walking away. The defendant was likely punching him in the side with his left hand. The victim dropped his bag and ran away, and the defendant took the victim's bag or suitcase."
Thereafter, the trial court sentenced defendant to five years' probation with the condition that defendant serve 180 days in county jail. Defendant was given 74 days actual credit plus 74 days conduct credit for a total of 148 days custody credit. The court found defendant was unable to pay the booking fee, classification fee, criminal impact fee, and costs of probation. The court imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a stayed $300 probation revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.44), a $40 court security fee (§ 1465.8), and a $30 court facility fee (Gov. Code, § 70373).
On January 26, 2016, defendant admitted he violated his probation by committing violations of section 148 and Health and Safety Code sections 11377 and 11364. Defendant agreed to serve 270 days in county jail with a credit waiver pursuant to People v. Johnson (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 183 and the addition of drug conditions. The court revoked and reinstated defendant's probation with the original terms, plus the agreed upon additional terms.
On January 3, 2019, the People filed another petition to revoke defendant's probation, alleging violations of section 314, subdivision (i) and Health and Safety Code section 11364. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the court heard the alleged violation of probation concurrent with the trial on the underlying named offenses. Defendant was found not guilty of the section 314 violation, but the court nonetheless found defendant violated his probation when he masturbated in front of the victim at a restaurant. The court imposed a sentence of the upper term of five years, noting that defendant was a danger to the community based upon his violent history, repeated offenses, and failure to successfully complete any period of probation or parole. The court noted the need for defendant to participate in drug rehabilitation and for the appointment of a new conservator that could appropriately "take charge" of defendant upon his release.
The court failed to complete its calculation of defendant's custody credits following the clerk's statement that defendant had 450 days sentence credit and 435 days actual credit. Nonetheless, the record contains a subsequent minute order wherein the trial court corrected defendant's custody credits to reflect 365 days sentence credit given defendant's Johnson waiver, plus 435 days actual credit, plus 434 days conduct credit for a total of 1,234 days custody credit. Defendant timely appealed.
II
Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests that we review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 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, but to date has not done so. Our review of the record has disclosed no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, and accordingly, we will affirm the judgment.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
HULL, J. We concur: /s/_________
BLEASE, Acting P. J. /s/_________
HOCH, J.