Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. CM026111
ROBIE , J.
After waiving his right to a jury trial, defendant Frank Andrea Moretto was convicted in a court trial of second degree burglary.
The prosecution presented the following evidence. On the afternoon of October 26, 2006, Tina Whaley entered a Mervyns store in Chico carrying a Kmart bag that appeared to contain a flat object. Whaley selected some sheets from a store shelf and then placed the sheets and the Kmart bag in a shopping cart. Whaley then pushed the shopping cart to a location near an exit, parked the cart there, and left the store.
A few minutes later, Whaley and defendant entered the Mervyns store together, and one of them pushed the shopping cart containing the sheets to a cash register. Although he had no receipt, defendant sought to return the sheets to the store for a refund. The store clerk accepted the return of the sheets and gave defendant a gift card for $450 after he displayed his out-of-state driver’s license. Whaley left the store during the return transaction. After defendant obtained the gift card, he too left the store. Defendant got into the passenger side of a white, two-door, older car, which then was driven away. A loss prevention supervisor obtained the car’s license plate number and gave it to the police.
The next month a law enforcement officer visited defendant and Whaley at a residence and questioned them together about the incident. Defendant was cooperative and repentant. He stated that they got involved in the incident because they were hurting for cash.
Defendant testified on his own behalf. He testified that he did not know what items Whaley intended to return to the store. However, he believed they were items that had been in the white bag she had removed from the trunk of the car. After a while Whaley left the store, came to the car, and asked defendant to present his driver’s license because hers had expired. He presented his valid identification and received a paper certificate for $450. During the transaction, defendant became suspicious so he tore up the paper certificate.
Defendant was sentenced to state prison for three years, awarded 149 days of custody credit and 74 days of conduct credit, and ordered to pay a $200 restitution fine, a $200 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked, a $10 theft fine plus penalty assessments, and a $20 court security fee.
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.
Our review of the record discloses that the abstract of judgment fails to disclose the penalty assessments on the theft fine. “All fines and fees must be set forth in the abstract of judgment. [Citations.]” (People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200.) We shall direct the trial court to correct the abstract to show a $10 theft fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.5), a $10 state penalty assessment (Pen. Code, § 1464), a $7 county penalty assessment (Gov. Code, § 76000), a $5 court construction fund fee (Gov. Code, § 70372), a $2 court surcharge (Pen. Code, § 1465.7), a $1 DNA identification fund fee (Gov. Code, § 76104.6), and a $1 DNA identification fund fee (Gov. Code, § 76104.7).
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to correct the abstract of judgment and to forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
We concur: NICHOLSON , Acting P. J. MORRISON , J.