Opinion
C081652
11-28-2017
1. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PERVIS DEE ROOTS, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 15F06550)
Appointed counsel for defendant Pervis Dee Roots asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment. We note errors in the abstract of judgment, however, which require correction.
BACKGROUND
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 123-124.)
David Hasegawa and his wife drove to a 99 Cents Only Store in a red Toyota RAV4. While his wife shopped, Hasegawa remained in the car smoking. About 10 minutes later, a woman approached the car and asked Hasegawa for a cigarette. He did not give her one.
The woman walked away toward a Ford Taurus parked behind Hasegawa. Defendant was in the driver's seat, and another man, "Doe," was in the passenger seat. The woman spoke with defendant through the car window. Defendant then drove the Taurus into the rear driver's side of the RAV4, blocking the RAV4's movement and damaging both vehicles.
Doe got out of the Taurus and reached into Hasegawa's car and stole his cigarettes. When Hasegawa got out of his car to demand the cigarettes back, Doe then got into the RAV4 on the front passenger side, and defendant got out of the Taurus, threatening Hasegawa with a baseball bat. Doe then got into the driver's seat of the RAV4 and started the engine. When Does reversed the RAV4, defendant got back into the Taurus and started it up and back up to release the RAV4. A struggle ensued when Hasegawa grabbed Doe by the neck and demanded his car back. Doe tried to dislodge Hasegawa by driving the RAV4 in circles around the parking lot. Once he dislodged Hasegawa, Doe drove the RAV4 out of the parking lot and defendant drove away in the Taurus. Two days later, law enforcement stopped the Taurus in a parking lot. Defendant was in the vehicle when it was stopped.
A jury found defendant guilty of carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215) and found true the allegation that defendant used a deadly weapon in the commission of the offense. (§ 12022, subd. (b)(2).) In bifurcated proceedings the court found true the allegations defendant had served two prior prison terms. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).) The trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for the midterm of five years for count one, two additional years for the deadly weapon enhancement, and two additional years for the prior prison term enhancements. The trial court awarded defendant 174 days of presentence custody credit. The trial court ordered defendant to pay a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), imposed and stayed a $300 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45), ordered defendant to pay a $10 fine per conviction (§ 1202.5), a $367.81 main jail booking fee (Gov. Code, § 29550.2), a $67.03 main jail classification fee (Gov. Code, § 29550.2), a $702 presentence investigation and report fee (§ 1203.1b), a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8), and a $30 court facility fee (Gov. Code, § 70373).
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
DISCUSSION
Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asks us to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant.
Having examined the record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
We have, however, found errors in the abstract of judgment that require correction. The abstract does not reflect the imposition of the $10 fine per conviction (§ 1202.5), the $367.81 main jail booking fee (Gov. Code, § 29550.2), the $67.03 main jail classification fee (Gov. Code, § 29550.2), or the $702 presentence investigation and report fee (§ 1203.1b). When there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of a sentence and the written order, the criminal court's oral pronouncement controls because it "constitutes the rendition of judgment," whereas "the written document is ministerial." (People v. Freitas (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 747, 750, fn. 2, disappoved on other grounds in People v. Hall (2017) 2 Cal.5th 494, 504, fn. 2; accord, People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1, 89 [oral pronouncement is judgment, and written abstract of judgment does not add to or modify judgment as orally pronounced].)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment reflecting the imposition of the $10 fine per conviction (§ 1202.5), the $367.81 main jail booking fee (Gov. Code, § 29550.2), the $67.03 main jail classification fee (Gov. Code, § 29550.2), and the $702 presentence investigation and report fee (§ 1203.1b). A copy of the amended abstract is to be forwarded to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
NICHOLSON, Acting P. J. We concur: HOCH, J. RENNER, J.