Opinion
C044153.
11-5-2003
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CASEY KENNETH LARSEN, Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Casey Kenneth Larsen pled guilty to two counts of committing a lewd act upon a child. (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a).) The court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 10 years in state prison, imposed a sex offender registration requirement, submission to DNA archiving and imposed a $200 sex offender fine. Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
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.
We have, however, discovered errors requiring us to modify the judgment and direct the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment. Although the court properly imposed the mandatory sex offender fine, it did not impose the required penalty assessments. (§ 1464; Gov. Code, § 76000.) These fees are mandatory, not subject to a defendants ability to pay, and their omission is subject to correction on appeal because the failure to impose them constitutes an unauthorized sentence. (People v. Martinez (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1511, 1519-1522; People v. Terrell (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1256-1257.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified to provide for state and county penalty assessments (§ 1464; Gov. Code, § 76000) of $200 and $ 140, respectively, upon the sex offender fine (§ 290.3). The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment to reflect these penalty assessments and to forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
We concur: RAYE, J. and ROBIE, J. --------------- Notes: Unless otherwise indicated, further statutory references are to the Penal Code.