Opinion
C070472
11-06-2012
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DONALD LEE JONES, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COPY
(Super. Ct. No. CR029433)
This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Having reviewed the record as required by Wende, we order that the court facility assessment be imposed on both defendant's convictions and otherwise affirm the judgment.
Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court 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 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 have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant.
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, 124.)
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On or about December 23, 2011, defendant Donald Lee Jones took a 1999 Honda Odyssey minivan with the intent to permanently or temporarily deprive the owner of possession of the vehicle. On the same date, defendant transported marijuana. Based on this conduct he was charged with unlawful taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a) count I), receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a) -- count II), and transportation of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11360, subd. (a) -- count III). Attached to each charge was a prior prison term allegation. (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b).)
Defendant pled guilty to counts I and III in exchange for a stipulated sentence of two years eight months and the dismissal of the remaining charge and the prior prison term allegations. The court ordered defendant to pay a restitution fine of $330 (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)(1)), a court security fee of $40 (Pen. Code, § 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), and a court facility assessment fee of $30 (Gov. Code, § 70373, subd. (a)(1)). In an amended abstract of judgment filed April 3, 2011, the court awarded defendant 26 days' presentence credit.
Defendant appealed and the court granted his request for a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5, subds. (a), (b).)
We have undertaken an examination of the entire record and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. However, we have found an error by the court in imposing the $30 court facility assessment pursuant to Government Code section 70373, subdivision (a)(1), and an error by the court clerk in recording this fine. Government Code section 70373, subdivision (a)(1) provides for a mandatory fine of $30 per conviction. (People v. Woods (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 269, 272.) The amended abstract of judgment records this fine as $40. Since there are two convictions, the fine is $60.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified to impose a court facility assessment of $60 ($30 per conviction) pursuant to Government Code section 70373, subdivision (a)(1). The superior court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment reflecting this modification, and to forward a certified copy of the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
MURRAY, J. We concur: RAYE, P. J. ROBIE, J.