Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles Count No. KA089015y, Mike Camacho, Judge.
California Appellate Project, Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director, and Richard B. Lennon, Staff Attorney, under appointments by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, James William Bilderback II and Michael C. Keller, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
KRIEGLER, J.
Defendant and appellant Frank Garcia Gutierrez entered a plea of no contest in superior court case No. KA089015 to possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of sale in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11378. He admitted suffering two prior drug-related convictions within the meaning Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (a), and serving two prior prison terms as defined in Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). Defendant was sentenced to the middle term of two years for the charged offense, enhanced by three years for each of the prior drug-related convictions, and one year for each of the prior prison terms for a total of ten years. Concurrent state prison sentences were imposed on probation violations in cases not before this court on appeal.
Defendant filed a notice of appeal that specified the trial court had erred in denying his pretrial motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5. His request for a certificate of probable cause appears not to have been ruled on by the trial court. This court initially issued an order to show cause as to why the appeal should not be dismissed, but after receiving a response on behalf of defendant, the order to show cause was discharged. Defendant was directed to file a brief addressing whether the fines, fees, and assessments imposed by the trial court in superior court case No. KA089015 were correct.
In response to this court’s direction, defendant has filed a brief thoroughly discussing the fines, fees, and assessments imposed by the trial court. He concludes all were correctly imposed, except for the laboratory fee under Health and Safety Code section 11372.5, subdivision (a). Defendant contends that when combined with applicable penalty assessments, the $50 lab fee should have totaled $180, rather than the $190 shown on the abstract of judgment.
The Attorney General agrees that the laboratory fee was incorrectly calculated on the abstract of judgment and that all other fines, fees, and assessments were properly imposed. The Attorney General concedes the abstract of judgment should be amended to reflect a total of $180 for the laboratory fee and assessment.
We agree with the parties. The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment in superior court case No. KA089015 reflecting a laboratory fee under Health and Safety Code section 11372.5, subdivision (a), including assessments of $180. A copy of the amended abstract of judgment shall be forwarded to the Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
We concur: TURNER, P. J., ARMSTRONG, J.