Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. CM026894
BUTZ , J.When officers encountered defendant Richard Eldon Lee who was wanted on parole violations, officers discovered methamphetamine in a hypodermic syringe on defendant’s person.
Defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) in exchange for an upper term lid and dismissal of the remaining allegations [a prior prison term and a strike prior] with a waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754. Defendant was not eligible for Proposition 36 treatment based on a prior serious or violent felony and prison custody within five years. Defendant waived his right to a probation report, to seek probation, to challenge an upper term sentence on the grounds of Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. ___ [166 L.Ed.2d 856] and to appeal except sentencing error. Defense counsel noted that defendant was not entitled to presentence custody credit. Based on “defendant’s prior record,” which consisted of two prior felony convictions, a parole abscond at the time of his offense and a prior unsuccessful commitment to the California Rehabilitation Center, the court imposed the upper term of three years in state prison.
Defendant appeals. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5)
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 have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant.
We note errors in the initial preparation of the abstract of judgment. Although the court initially imposed a drug program fee, defense counsel objected based on defendant’s inability to pay and the court then struck the fee. The abstract erroneously reflects the drug program fee under item 11., “Other orders.” Under “Other orders,” the abstract also erroneously reflects $180 for the criminal laboratory analysis fee (lab fee) when the court imposed $170. The reporter’s transcript reflects that the court imposed a court security fee of “$200,” which is obviously a typographical error since Penal Code section 1465.8 allows a $20 fee for each conviction. Defendant had one conviction. The surcharge listed under item 9.d. of the abstract should be $20. The abstract erroneously reflects $40. We will order the abstract corrected accordingly. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185.)
Defendant’s appellate counsel made a request to the trial court for corrections to the abstract of judgment on August 1, 2007. In a footnote in the opening brief, counsel notes that the trial court issued an amended abstract on August 20, 2007. While this amended abstract apparently addressed the discrepancies we note in this opinion, the record on appeal does not contain a copy.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The trial court is directed to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment deleting the drug program fee, amending the lab fee to $170 and reducing the court security surcharge to $20 and to
forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: DAVIS , Acting P.J. RAYE , J.