Opinion
C067850 Super. Ct. No. 102563
12-01-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARLO LYNNE COMPTON, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Defendant Marlo Lynne Compton pled no contest to embezzlement from an elder. In exchange, two related counts and two related enhancements were dismissed. Defendant was sentenced to state prison for four years, awarded 156 days' custody credit and 156 days' conduct credit pursuant to the 2010 amendment to Penal Code section 2933, and ordered to pay a $200 restitution fine, a $200 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked, and a $30 court facilities assessment. She was ordered to make restitution to her victims jointly and severally with a codefendant. The trial court issued a certificate of probable cause.
FACTS
On or about January 13, 2010, defendant, acting in concert with two coconspirators, did through fraud, trick, and devise, embezzle approximately $1.5 million from an elderly couple who were over the age of 65 years. The three conspirators gave conflicting accounts of how the embezzlement had occurred.
DISCUSSION
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.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
Our review discloses that the probation report did not recommend, and the trial court did not orally pronounce, the mandatory court security fee (Pen. Code, § 1465.8, former subd. (a)(1); Stats. 2009, ch. 342, § 5) that is listed on the abstract of judgment. We shall modify the judgment to include this fee.
Our review further discloses that the $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), recommended by probation and pronounced by the court, is not included on the abstract of judgment. We shall direct the trial court to correct the abstract to include this fee.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified to impose a $30 court security fee. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to amend the abstract of judgment to include the $30 court facilities assessment. A certified copy of the amended abstract shall be forwarded to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
ROBIE, Acting P. J. We concur:
BUTZ, J.
MAURO, J.