Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. 62065116
DAVIS, Acting P.J.
Defendant David Earl Wiggins entered a negotiated plea of guilty to possession of cocaine in exchange for a sentence of 16 months in state prison. Three prior prison term allegations were dismissed as part of the plea agreement.
The trial court ordered defendant to pay a $150 drug program fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.7), a $50 criminal analysis laboratory fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5), a $200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $200 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked (§ 1202.45), and a $20 court security fee (Pen. Code, § 1465.8). When the trial court imposed these fees and fines, defense counsel asked the court if it “would consider waiving the $420 in fines you just issued based on the fact [that defendant] is homeless.” The trial court responded, “They are statutory minimums.”
On appeal, defendant contends we must remand for resentencing because the trial court did not understand it had the discretion not to impose the $150 drug program fee if it found defendant did not have the ability to pay. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.7, subd. (b).) Respondent argues that defendant’s contention is forfeited because defendant failed to raise the issue in the trial court. We agree that defendant’s contention is forfeited.
Reasonably construed, when defense counsel asked if the court would consider waiving “the $420 in fines” it had just imposed, counsel was referring to the $200 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)), the $200 restitution fine that was stayed unless parole is revoked (Pen. Code, § 1202.45), and the $20 court security fee (Pen. Code, § 1465.8). As noted by the trial court, the restitution fine the court imposed is the statutory minimum; the fine imposed pursuant to Penal Code section 1465.8 is a set amount. Defendant’s inability to pay those fines is relevant only if the trial court otherwise intends to impose a restitution fine exceeding $200. (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (c).)
If defendant wished to object to the imposition of the $150 drug program fee, as opposed to the $400 in restitution fines and the $20 security fee, he needed to be more specific in his request, particularly after hearing the trial court’s reply to his request that the fines be waived. Objections to a sentence imposed must be sufficiently specific to provide the trial court a meaningful opportunity to correct any errors. (People v. de Soto (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1, 9.) Accordingly, defendant has failed to preserve his objection for appeal. (See People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 352-356.)
The abstract of judgment, however, contains clerical errors and requires correction. As previously discussed, the trial court imposed a $50 laboratory fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5), and a $150 drug program fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.7). The abstract of judgment erroneously reflects imposition of a $150 laboratory fee (rather than the $50 ordered) and omits reference to the drug program fee. The abstract also fails to reflect the $20 court security fee (Pen. Code, § 1465.8) imposed by the trial court.
Additionally, when the trial court imposed the mandatory $50 Health and Safety Code section 11372.5 laboratory fee, it also imposed the corresponding penalty assessments of $50 (Pen. Code, § 1464) and $35 (Gov. Code, § 76000, subd. (a)(1)). Likewise, when the court imposed the $150 mandatory Health and Safety Code section 11372.7 drug program fee, it also imposed the corresponding penalty assessments of $150 (Pen. Code, § 1464) and $105 (Gov. Code, § 76000, subd. (a)(1)). These penalty assessments must be set forth in the abstract of judgment. (People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200 [“[a]ll fines and fees must be set forth in the abstract of judgment”].)
The abstract must be corrected to reflect the judgment pronounced by the court. (See People v. Rowland (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 119, 123-124.) Thus, we will order the abstract corrected accordingly. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185.)
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment reflecting the $50 laboratory fee and its corresponding penalty assessments, the $150 drug program fee and its corresponding penalty assessments, and the $20 court security fee, and to forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
We concur: NICHOLSON, J., HULL, J.