Filed 2/3/14 P. v. Silveira CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

GABRIEL LEAL SILVEIRA,

Defendant and Appellant.

F066312

(Super. Ct. No. 12CM2458)

OPINION

THE COURT*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. Robert S. 

Burns, Judge.

Deborah Prucha, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and 

Respondent.

-ooOoo-

 

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J, and Peña, J.
2

Appellant, Gabriel Leal Silveira, pled no contest to transportation of 

methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)) and admitted allegations that 

he had a prior conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law (Pen. Code, § 667, 

subds. (b)-(i)). Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende

(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), we found that the court neglected to impose a mandatory 

parole revocation fine. We will modify the judgment to include this fine and affirm the 

judgment as modified.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 11, 2012, at approximately 11:17 a.m., officers from various law 

enforcement agencies executed a search warrant at Silveira’s residence in Hanford. 

Silveira was stopped as he drove a truck away from the house. During an ensuing search 

of the truck, officers found a plastic container attached to the underside of the truck’s 

body. Inside the container, officers found 14 grams of methamphetamine and packaging 

material. During the traffic stop, Silveira showed symptoms of being under the influence 

of a controlled substance. A urine test confirmed the substance was methamphetamine.

On September 12, 2012, the district attorney filed a first amended information 

charging Silveira with transportation of methamphetamine (count 1), possession of 

methamphetamine for sale (count 2/Health & Saf. Code, § 11378), possession of 

methamphetamine (count 3/Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), and being under the 

influence of methamphetamine (count 4/Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (a)). Counts 

1 and 2 also alleged a prior conviction enhancement (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, 

subd. (c)) and the information alleged a prior prison term enhancement (Pen. Code, § 

667.5, sub. (b)) and that Silveira had a prior conviction within the meaning of the three 

strikes law.

On September 25, 2012, Silveira pled no contest to the transportation charge and 

admitted the three strikes allegation in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts 
3

and allegations in the instant case, dismissal of three unrelated cases, and a stipulated 

prison term of six years. 

On October 24, 2012, the court sentenced Silveira to the stipulated six-year prison 

term: the middle term of three years on Silveira’s transportation conviction, doubled 

because of his prior strike conviction. 

Silveira’s appellate counsel has filed a brief which summarizes the facts, with 

citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the 

record. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Silveira has not responded to this court’s 

invitation to submit additional briefing. However, our review of the record disclosed that 

the court erred by its failure to impose a parole revocation fine.

Penal Code section 1202.45, provides in pertinent part:

“(a) In every case where a person is convicted of a crime and his or 

her sentence includes a period of parole, the court shall, at the time of 

imposing the restitution fine pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 1202.4, 

assess an additional parole revocation restitution fine in the same amount as 

that imposed pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 1202.4. 

“(c) The fines imposed pursuant to subdivision[] (a) ... shall be 

suspended unless the person’s parole ... is revoked.” (Italics added.)

Although the trial court imposed a $1,440 restitution fine, it did not impose a 

parole revocation fine in the same amount as required by Penal Code section 1202.45. 

Therefore, we will modify the judgment to include a $1,440 parole revocation fine.

Further, following an independent review of the record we find that no other 

reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is modified to include a parole revocation fine, pursuant to Penal 

Code section 1202.45, in the amount of $1,440. The trial court is directed to prepare an 

amended abstract of judgment consistent with this opinion and to forward a certified copy 

to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. As modified, the judgment is 

affirmed.