Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Martin L. Herscovitz, Judge, Super. Ct. No. LA053576
Gideon Margolis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Lance E. Winters, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
KRIEGLER, J.
Defendant and appellant Leon Orellana was sentenced to state prison for ten years four months on charges of violating Penal Code section 459 and Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a). The trial court imposed a restitution fine in the amount of $1000 (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $1000 parole revocation fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.45), and a $20 security fee on each count (Pen. Code, § 1465.8). Defendant filed a timely appeal from the judgment. We order correction of clerical errors in the abstract of judgment and otherwise affirm.
Prior to briefing, this court directed the parties to address the impact of this court’s decision in People v. Chavez (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1340 (modified at 150 Cal.App.4th 1288, review granted, Aug. 2007, S153920, review dism. and remanded Oct. 24, 2007) on the fines imposed. In response to our letter, defendant filed a brief arguing that construction penalties (Gov. Code, § 70372) could not be attached to his restitution and parole revocation fines. No other contentions were advanced by defendant on appeal.
Defendant correctly argues he is not subject to construction penalties under Government Code section 70372. We recently held that the 2007 amendment to Government Code section 70372 clarifies that no courthouse construction penalty assessment may be added to any restitution fines. (People v. McCoy (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1256.) We further held that the amendment to the statute applies to pending cases. (Id. at pp. 1254-1257.) The trial court properly did not impose the construction penalty to defendant’s fines.
The Attorney General points out two errors in the abstract of judgment, which we now order corrected. First, the Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a) charge in count 3 is indicated on the abstract as being the lower term, when in fact a consecutive sentence of one-third the midterm was imposed. Second, the abstract reflects imposition of a single $20 security fee pursuant to Penal Code section 1465.8. In its oral pronouncement of judgment, the trial court properly imposed a $20 security fee as to both counts.
DISPOSITION
The abstract of judgment is ordered corrected to reflect that the consecutive sentence in count 3 for violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a), was one-third of the middle term. The abstract is ordered corrected to reflect the imposition of a separate $20 security fee pursuant to Penal Code section 1465.8 as to counts 2 and 3. The trial court shall direct delivery of the corrected abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
We concur: ARMSTRONG, Acting P. J., MOSK, J.