1 Filed 9/24/14 P. v. Conley CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento)

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. CHAD MASEO CONLEY, Defendant and Appellant. C075672 (Super. Ct. No. 12F06642)

This appeal comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ). An information charged defendant Chad Maseo Conley with two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm (counts one & two; Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)) 1 and one count of being a felon in possession of an assa ult rifle (count three; § 30605, subd. (a)). Defendant pled no contest to count two in return for a stipulat ed three-year upper term state prison sentence, to run concurrently with time he was currently serving in Yolo

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.2 County, and the dismissal of the remaining coun ts. The parties stipul ated that on or about September 29, 2012, in Sacr amento County, de fendant, who had previously been convicted of violating Health and Safety Code section 11378, owned a Smith & Wesson
.38-caliber revolver. The trial court thereafter imposed the agreed-upon sentence, including three years of postrelease community supervision. The court awarded defendant 36 days of presentence custody credits (18 actual days and 18 conduct days). The court imposed a $240 restitution fine (§ 1202. 4, subd. (b)), a suspended parole revocation restitution fine in the same amount (§ 1202.45), a $30 court facility fe e (Gov. Code, § 70373), and a $40 court security assessment (§ 1465.8). We appointed counsel to represent defenda nt 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. ( Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of th e right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More th an 30 days elapsed, and we
received no communication from defendant. Ha ving undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable
to defendant. However, we must remand the matter to the tr ial court with directions to strike the suspended parole revocation re stitution fine. That fine may be imposed only when a defendant’s sentence “includes a period of pa role.” (§ 1202.45.) Defendant’s present offense is not among those for which a period of parole is mandated (§ 3000.08, subd. (a)), and the court expressly subjected him in stead to a period of postrelease community supervision upon the completion of his prison term. (§ 3000 .08, subd. (b).) Therefore, a suspended parole revocation restitu tion fine may not be imposed here.3 DISPOSITION
The matter is remanded to the trial court with directions to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment that deletes the fine un der section 1202.45 and to forward a certified copy of the corrected abstract to the Department of Correcti ons and Rehabilitation. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

BLEASE , J.

We concur:

RAYE , P. J.

HULL , J.