Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. LA052130, Richard H. Kirschner, Judge.
Leslie Conrad, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.
TURNER, P. J.
Defendant, Jose Guerra, appeals from his conviction, after a jury trial, of one count of first degree murder. (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a).) (All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.) The jury found defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death to the victim. (§ 12022.53, subd. (d).) He was sentenced to two consecutive terms of 25 years to life. Additionally, the trial court ordered defendant to: provide deoxyribonucleic acid and blood samples (§ 296); pay a $200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) and a $200 parole revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.45); pay $7,467 plus 10 percent interest to the victim restitution fund; and pay $1,200 to the victim’s mother. The trial court awarded a total presentence custody credit of 708 days.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Appointed counsel has filed a brief in which no issues are raised. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442; In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97, 100-119; see Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 264.) On August 12, 2008, we advised defendant he had 30 days within which to submit by brief or letter any grounds of appeal, contentions, or argument he wished this court to consider. Defendant has not filed any response. We conclude, following examination of the entire record, that appointed appellate counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities. No argument exists favorable to defendant. (Smith v. Robbins, supra, 528 U.S. at pp. 277-284; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
The trial court should have imposed a $20 court security fee pursuant to section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1). (People v. Crittle (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 368, 371; People v. Schoeb (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 861, 865-866.) Upon remittitur issuance, a section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1) fee shall be imposed. Additionally, the abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the $20 court security fee. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.155(c)(1); see also People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185-188.)
The trial court imposed two restitution orders. First, the trial court ordered defendant to pay $7,467 plus interest to the victim restitution fund. Second, the trial court ordered defendant to pay $1,200 to the victim’s mother. The abstract of judgment reflects restitution to the victim in the amount of $8,667 plus interest. The oral pronouncement of sentence controls over its synthesis in the abstract of judgment. (People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471; People v. Hartsell (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 8, 14.) The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the oral pronouncement, which required two separate restitution payments: one to the restitution fund pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (f)(2); and another to the victim’s mother. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.155(c)(1); see also People v. Mitchell, supra, 26 Cal.4th at pp. 186-188; People v. Garcia (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 18, 24 fn. 1; People v. Walz (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1364, 1367, fn. 3.) The trial court is to personally insure the abstract of judgment is corrected to fully comport with the modifications we have ordered. (People v. Acosta (2002) 29 Cal.4th 105, 110, fn. 2; People v. Chan (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 408, 425-426.)
The judgment is modified to impose a $20 court security fee. The abstract of judgment is to be corrected to accurately reflect the restitution orders as specified in the body of the opinion. The clerk is to forward an amended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The judgment is affirmed in all other respects.
We concur: ARMSTRONG, J., KRIEGLER, J.