Filed 2/3/14 P. v. Silveira CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 , Defenda nt 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, f or Defendant and Appellant.
O ffice 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 th at 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 conta iner , 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) ) . C o unts 1 and 2 also alleged a prior conviction en hancement (Health & Saf. Code, § 113 70.2, subd. (c)) and the information a lleged a prior prison term enhancement (Pen. Code, § 667.5, su b. (b)) and that Silveira had a prior conviction within the meaning of the three
strikes law

. On Septe m ber 25, 2012, Silveira pled no contest to the tr ansportation cha r ge and
admitted the thre e strikes allegation in exch a nge for dismissal of the remain ing counts3

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 stipulate d 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, rai ses 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 b y its failure to impose a parole revocation fine.
Penal Code s ection 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 impo sing the restitution fine pursuant to subdivision (b) of S ection 1202.4 , assess an additional parole revocation restitution fine in the same amount as that imposed pursuant to subdivision (b) of S ection 1202.4

. “(c) The fines imposed pursuant to subdiv ision [] (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 12 02.45. Therefore, we will modify the judgment to include a $1,440 p arole revocation fine.
F urther , f ollowing an independent review of the record we find that no other reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
DISPOSITION The judgment is modifie d to include a parole revocation fine , pursuant to Penal
Code section 1202.45 , in the amount of $1,4 4 0. The trial court is directed to prepare an
amended abstract o f judgment consistent with this opinion and to forward a certified copy
to the De p artment o f Corrections and Rehabilitation. As modified, the judgment is
affirmed.