Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. 08F01720
ROBIE, J.
In March 2008, Sacramento County sheriff’s deputies responded to a report of child molestation. The mother of the victim, a nine-year-old girl, advised the deputies that her daughter told staff members at her after-school program that defendant Orville C. Wynter was sexually abusing her. The mother confronted defendant, who admitted abusing the victim.
Deputies interviewed the victim and she told them that defendant “fondled her vagina skin-to-skin on numerous occasions.” She described the molestations as occurring mostly at bedtime, when her mother was gone or asleep. She also said that defendant told her to keep the molestations secret and sometimes offered to take her to Toys “R” Us if she allowed him to touch her.
The deputies also interviewed defendant at the police station. Defendant admitting rubbing the victim’s vagina both skin-to-skin and over her panties. He explained the act was not sexual, but intended to soothe the child before she went to sleep. He described the first incident as occurring approximately one year prior and said the frequency of the molestation had increased over time.
Defendant was arrested and later charged with six counts of committing a lewd and lascivious act on a minor under the age of 14. It was further alleged that in the commission of the charged offenses, defendant engaged in substantial sexual conduct. Defendant pled no contest to the charges and enhancements (an “open plea” where defendant received nothing in exchange).
Prior to sentencing, the probation department issued a report recommending defendant be sentenced to a term of six years in state prison. After considering the report along with numerous letters submitted on defendant’s behalf and hearing from the victim’s mother, the trial court sentenced defendant to a term of five years in state prison.
Defendant was ordered to pay a restitution fine of $200. A second restitution fine of $200 was stayed pending defendant’s successful completion of probation. Defendant also was ordered to pay direct restitution to the victim in an amount to be determined later, a $20 court security fee, a $242.29 main jail booking fee, and a $27.22 main jail classification fee. Defendant also was awarded 10 days’ custody credit. Defendant appeals without a certificate of probable cause.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant 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. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief.
Defendant filed a supplemental brief claiming he was unaware the statement he made to the detective would be used against him. We interpret defendant’s claim to mean that he either was not given his Miranda rights or they were not fully explained to him. Assuming for the sake of argument that defendant’s claim has merit, the information required to support it is outside the record. Accordingly, the claim is more properly resolved through a petition for habeas corpus. (People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412, 426.)
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [16 L.Ed.2d 694].
Defendant also contends the allegations of “substantial sexual conduct” were false. The contention challenges defendant’s plea to the enhancement allegation and is not reviewable without a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5; People v. Stubbs (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 243, 244-245; see People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 74-75.)
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find an error in the judgment that must be corrected. In the interest of judicial economy, we correct this error without first requesting supplemental briefing. A party claiming to be aggrieved may petition for rehearing. (Gov. Code, § 68081.)
At sentencing, the trial court failed to impose the correct amount for the court security fee (Pen. Code, § 1465.8), which is $30 per conviction. This fee is mandatory. (Cf. People v. Wallace (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 867, 877.) Therefore, it is subject to imposition, and thus correction, on appeal even if the prosecutor failed to object in the trial court. (People v. Talibdeen (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1151, 1157.) Defendant pled guilty to six counts of lewd and lascivious conduct with a minor. We shall order the judgment modified to reflect a $180 court security fee under Penal Code section 1465.8.
Having reviewed the record, we find no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified to order defendant to pay the court security fee of $180. (Pen. Code, § 1465.8.) As modified, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to amend the abstract of judgment to reflect imposition of the $180 court security fee and send a certified copy of the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
We concur: RAYE, Acting P. J., HULL, J.