Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Sup. Ct. No. 06F05059
MORRISON, J.
Defendant Timothy John Chowaniec attended a family barbeque on May 14, 2006. It was later determined that he stole a credit card and seven blank checks from the purse of another family member. Several days later, video surveillance captured defendant twice passing the stolen checks at local Wal-Mart stores, having forged the victim’s boyfriend’s signature on the checks. The purchases totaled $500.57.
The victim also reported her gasoline card missing on May 15, 2006, and, when she called to cancel the card, she was informed there had been three unauthorized purchases made within the prior 24 hours totaling $99.61.
Defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to one count of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459; further undesignated references are to this code), and admitted a prior strike allegation (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), § 1170.12) in exchange for dismissal of two counts of forgery by possession of check or money order with intent to defraud (§ 475, subd. (c)), and one count of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459). As part of the negotiated plea, defendant entered a Harvey waiver and an Arbuckle waiver. Defendant also specifically requested and entered a Cruz waiver whereby he stipulated that the court would release him on his own recognizance for one week, at the conclusion of which he would either return to the main jail by 6:00 p.m. on July 18, 2006, and receive the lower term of 16 months, doubled pursuant to the prior strike admission, or otherwise be sentenced to the upper term of three years, doubled pursuant to the strike.
People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.
People v. Arbuckle (1978) 22 Cal.3d 749.
People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247.
Defendant was released on his own recognizance, but failed to report to his probation officer and failed to return to the main jail by 6:00 p.m. on July 18, 2006, as agreed. Defendant was arrested on a no-bail bench warrant. He was referred to probation for a presentence report, but refused to meet with the probation officer. Over defense counsel’s objection, the court sentenced defendant to the upper term of three years, doubled pursuant to the strike, for an aggregate sentence of six years in state prison. The court also imposed a restitution fine in the amount of $1,200 (§ 1202.4) and a parole revocation restitution fine in an equal amount (stayed) (§ 1202.45). Defendant was awarded a total of 120 days of presentence custody credit, and ordered to pay victim restitution in the amount of $601.18 (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)).
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. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant.
Our review of the record reveals an error in the calculation of restitution to the victim (§ 1204.4(a)(3)(B)) as pronounced by the court, and an omission of that restitution from the abstract of judgment. First, the amount of $601.18 in victim restitution, as recommended by probation and adopted by the trial court, appears to have been incorrectly calculated. According to the probation report upon which the court relied, the victim reported a loss of $99.61 on the credit card purchases and a loss of $500.57 resulting from negotiation of the forged checks. The total loss is therefore $600.18. We consider that to be a clerical error and, under our inherent power to correct such errors, we direct the trial court to amend the restitution amount to accurately reflect the true facts. (People v. Rowland (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 119, 123; People v. Anthony (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1114, 1125.)
Second, the victim restitution imposed by the court when judgment was pronounced is not reflected in either the court’s minute order or the abstract of judgment. “All fines and fees must be set forth in the abstract of judgment. [Citations.]” (People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200.) We will order the abstract amended to reflect the corrected victim restitution. (See People v. Sanchez (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1331-1332 [correcting abstract of judgment to reflect mandatory laboratory fee orally imposed]; People v. Goodwin (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1084, 1094, fn. 8 [correcting abstract to reflect restitution fine orally imposed].)
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error in favor of defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare an amended minute order and an amended abstract of judgment, both reflecting a victim restitution of $600.18, and to forward a certified copy of the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
We concur: SIMS, Acting P.J., ROBIE, J.