Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. NCR69595
RAYE, Acting P.J.Drug enforcement authorities executed a search warrant at the home of defendant David C. Griffin and found numerous pseudoephedrine tablets as well as other drugs, drug paraphernalia, and items used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. Defendant pled guilty to unlawful possession of pseudoephedrine with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11383, subd. (c)(1)) in exchange for dismissal of all remaining charges and special allegations against him. The court sentenced defendant to six years in state prison, awarding him one day of presentence custody credit, and imposed fees and fines “as recommended, except that the Court orders $1200 in restitution fines rather than [$]800.” The probation report recommended an $800 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)); an $800 restitution fine, stayed pending successful completion of parole (Pen. Code, § 1202.45); a $20 court security fee (Pen. Code, § 1465.8); $170 in criminal laboratory fees, comprised of a $50 criminal laboratory analysis fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5, subd. (a)), a $10 state surcharge (Pen. Code, § 1465.7), $25 for the state court facilities construction fund (Gov. Code, § 70372, subd. (a)), a $50 state penalty assessment (Pen. Code, § 1464), and a $35 county penalty assessment (Gov. Code, § 76000); and a drug program fee of $340, comprised of a $100 drug program fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.7, subd. (a)), a $20 state surcharge (Pen. Code, § 1465.7), $50 for the state court facilities construction fund (Gov. Code, § 70372, subd. (a)), a $100 state penalty assessment (Pen. Code, § 1464), and a $70 county penalty assessment (Gov. Code, § 76000). Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
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 in favor of defendant.
We do, however, note that while the abstract of judgment accurately sets forth the fees and fines, it fails to reflect the breakdown of either the $170 criminal laboratory fee or the $340 drug program fee. “All fines and fees must be set forth in the abstract of judgment. [Citations.]” (People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200.) “Courts may correct clerical errors at any time, and appellate courts . . . that have properly assumed jurisdiction of cases have ordered correction of abstracts of judgment that did not accurately reflect the oral judgments of sentencing courts.” (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185.) Accordingly, we shall direct the trial court to correct the cited clerical errors.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to amend the abstract of judgment to separately list, with the statutory basis for each, all fines, fees, and penalties imposed, and to send a certified copy of the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
We concur, MORRISON, J., HULL, J.