Opinion
C084927
08-14-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NICHOLAS SEAN CONDREY, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. CRF161757)
Defendant Nicholas Sean Condrey appeals from a judgment entered after his no contest plea to attempted lewd or lascivious act upon a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 664/288, subd. (a)) for which he was sentenced to three years in state prison and ordered to pay $1,140 pursuant to section 290.3. He argues the trial court erred in failing to individually state the authority for and the individual amounts comprising the $840 in penalty assessments in excess of the $300 base fine. We concur with the People that defendant's appeal is not cognizable under section 1237.2, and therefore, we dismiss it.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
Section 1237.2 provides: "An appeal may not be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction on the ground of an error in the imposition or calculation of fines, penalty assessments, surcharges, fees, or costs unless the defendant first presents the claim in the trial court at the time of sentencing, or if the error is not discovered until after sentencing, the defendant first makes a motion for correction in the trial court, which may be made informally in writing. The trial court retains jurisdiction after a notice of appeal has been filed to correct any error in the imposition or calculation of fines, penalty assessments, surcharges, fees, or costs upon the defendant's request for correction. This section only applies in cases where the erroneous imposition or calculation of fines, penalty assessments, surcharges, fees, or costs are the sole issue on appeal."
Defendant's sole issue on appeal is that the trial court erred in failing to individually state the authority for and the individual amounts comprising the $840 in penalty assessments in excess of the $300 base fine it imposed. The record is devoid of evidence showing defendant complied with section 1237.2's prerequisite that he first seek correction in the trial court. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. (See People v. Alexander (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 798, 801 [dismissing appeal pursuant to § 1237.2 where sole issue was an alleged error in imposing a restitution fine].)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
/s/_________
Blease, Acting P. J. We concur: /s/_________
Mauro, J. /s/_________
Renner, J.