Opinion
A149165
05-30-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANTHONY BOSCH, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Lake County Super. Ct. No. CR-939605)
Appellant Anthony Bosch pled no contest to one count of possession for sale of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) and admitted to a prior controlled substances conviction (§ 11370.2, subd. (c)). The trial court imposed a six-year sentence, with the last two years to be served on "Mandatory Community Supervision." Appellant's counsel has raised no issue on appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable sentencing or other post-plea issues. (See Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not filed a supplemental brief. We correct the trial court's laboratory fee assessment and otherwise affirm.
All undesignated statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code. --------
BACKGROUND
In January 2016, appellant was charged by information with one count of transportation of methamphetamine (§ 11379, subd. (a)) and one count of possession of methamphetamine for sale (§ 11378), with special allegations that appellant had previously been convicted of possession for sale of a controlled substance within the meaning of section 11370.2, subdivision (c). The information also charged appellant with misdemeanor possession of methamphetamine (§ 11377, subd. (a)).
In May 2016, appellant pled no contest to the possession for sale charge and admitted the prior conviction. In July, the trial court denied probation and imposed a six-year sentence, comprised of the upper term of three years for the possession for sale charge, plus three years for the prior conviction. The court directed that the last two years of the sentence be served on Mandatory Community Supervision. The court also awarded credits and imposed fines and fees.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal specifying it is based "on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea."
DISCUSSION
Defendant's no contest plea restricts the scope of the appeal before us. Because defendant did not request a certificate of probable cause, his appeal is limited to "postplea claims, including sentencing issues, that do not challenge the validity of the plea." (People v. Cuevas (2008) 44 Cal.4th 374, 379; see also People v. Brown (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 356, 359-360.)
We have reviewed the entire record and have found no arguable appellate issues. The trial court's sentence was consistent with the plea form signed by appellant. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying probation or imposing the upper term. (People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, 847; People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1120.) The fines and fees imposed by the court were proper, with the exception of the section 11372.5 laboratory fee. As to that fee, the court's minutes reflect the imposition of a $155 fee and a $50 penalty assessment. That is erroneous in two ways. First, the minutes do not accurately reflect the court's oral pronouncement of sentence, because the reporter's transcript reflects the court properly identified the $50 as the fee under section 11372.5. Second, the court erred in imposing a penalty assessment on the laboratory fee. (People v. Watts (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 223, 226.) We will direct the court to correct the errors.
Appellate counsel advised appellant of his right to file a supplemental brief to bring to this court's attention any issue he believes deserves review. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) Appellant did not file a supplemental brief. There are no legal issues that require further briefing.
DISPOSITION
The trial court's July 26, 2016 judgment, as reflected in the court's minutes, is modified to strike the penalty assessment imposed on the section 11372.5 laboratory fee, and to reduce the amount of the fee to $50. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
Simons, J., Acting P.J. We concur: /s/_________
Needham, J. /s/_________
Bruiniers, J.