Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. 06F05506
NICHOLSON, J.
In case No. 06F05506, defendant Tony Curtis Morgan pled no contest to second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) and petty theft with a prior (§ 666) and admitted a prior strike allegation. (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12.) In exchange for the plea, the People agreed defendant would be sentenced to the low term of 16 months, doubled because of the prior strike admission. It was also agreed defendant could file a Romero motion to strike the strike allegation. In case No. 06F03275, defendant pled no contest to unlawfully taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), receiving stolen property (§ 496d, subd. (a)) and resisting a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)). In exchange for this plea, the charges were reduced to misdemeanor offenses.
All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero).
Prior to sentencing, defendant filed a motion to strike the prior strike allegation pursuant to Romero, supra, 13 Cal.4th 497, or to dismiss the strike allegation in the interests of justice under section 1385. The court denied this motion.
In case No. 06F05506, defendant was sentenced to the low term of 16 months in prison on the second degree burglary conviction. The sentence was doubled to 32 months because of the prior strike conviction. Defendant was sentenced to the low term of 16 months in state prison, also doubled because of the prior strike, on the petty theft conviction. This sentence was stayed under section 654. In case No. 06F03275, probation was denied and defendant was ordered to serve 120 days in county jail, to run concurrently with his state prison term. Defendant was denied probation in case No. 05F02461 and sentenced to the low term of two years, also to run concurrently to the prison term imposed in case No. 06F05506. The court ordered defendant to pay a $600 restitution fine and a parole revocation restitution fine (suspended) in the same amount. (Pen. Code, §§ 1202.4, subd. (b), 1202.45.) The court also ordered defendant to pay restitution to World Wine Liquors in an amount to be determined, and imposed a $213.37 main jail booking fee. (Gov. Code, § 29550.2.) All other fees were waived.
The proceedings underlying this probation violation case are not contained in this record on appeal. It appears this case served as the basis for the prior strike conviction.
The court also apparently imposed a $400 restitution fine and a $400 parole revocation restitution fine (suspended) in case No. 05F02461.
Defendant filed a notice of appeal in case No. 06F05506 only.
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, noted errors in the abstract of judgment which require correction. The abstract does not reflect the imposition of the $213.37 main jail booking fee. The abstract does reflect the imposition of the mandatory $20 court security fee. However, this fee was not orally imposed by the court at the time it rendered judgment. That is, the trial court failed to include the mandatory $20 court security fee in the judgment. We will direct its inclusion in the judgment. (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1); People v. Talibdeen (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1151, 1157 [mandatory fee properly imposed on appeal]; People v. Martinez (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1511, 1521-1522.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified to provide for the mandatory $20 court security fee. As modified, the judgment is affirmed. Because the abstract of judgment reflects the court security fee, the abstract does not need to be corrected as to this fee. The superior court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment reflecting the imposition of the $213.37 main jail booking fee. A copy of the amended abstract is to be forwarded to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
We concur. SCOTLAND, P.J., CANTIL-SAKAUYE,J.