Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. No. FVA022717, Dwight W. Moore, Judge.
John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Scott C. Taylor and Marissa Bejarano, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RAMIREZ P. J.
Defendant and appellant Joshua Renault Pomier pled guilty to seven counts of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), including an enhancement for the personal use of a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). On appeal he contends that the court security fee should be reduced to $140 from $180 and that the abstract of judgment should be corrected so that the “total time on attached pages” in box No. 6 is accurate. The People agree on both points. We modify and otherwise affirm.
Unless otherwise noted, all further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
FACTS
On September 4, 2004, defendant robbed the customers of a beauty salon while wielding a handgun. Around the same date, defendant also committed other criminal activity for which he was charged. As part of a plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to seven counts of robbery related to the beauty salon incident, including an enhancement for the use of a firearm. Charges related to defendant’s other criminal activity and additional counts related to the beauty salon incident were dismissed.
The court set count 4 as the principal count (§ 211) and imposed the upper term of five years, with a 10-year consecutive term for the firearm enhancement and one-year consecutive terms for each of the other six robbery counts, for a total sentence of 21 years. The trial court ordered a $180 court security fee, which the sentencing minute order imposed as nine $20 court security fees. The abstract of judgment indicates the correct total sentence of 21 years, but indicates in box No. 6 that the total time on attached pages is two years. The attached page contains one of the robbery counts with only a one-year consecutive sentence.
CLERICAL ERROR
The abstract of judgment incorrectly indicates that two years are listed on attached pages but has the correct total sentence. We have the inherent power to correct clerical errors in abstracts of judgment to make records reflect the true facts. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185.) Because the abstract of judgment indicates in box No. 6 that the total time on attached pages is two years, but the attached pages only indicate one year, box No. 6 should be modified to indicate only one year.
SECURITY FEE
The trial court imposed a total of $180 in security fees pursuant to section 1465.8. Section 1465.8 mandates the imposition of “a fee of twenty dollars... on every conviction for a criminal offense....” (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1).) Defendant was convicted of seven counts, and thus is subject to seven $20 fees for a total of $140 and not $180. (See People v. Schoeb (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 861, 865–866.) Accordingly, two of the $20 security fees must be stricken.
DISPOSITION
Two of the $20 fees pursuant to section 1465.8 are stricken. The superior court clerk is directed to correct the abstract of judgment by modifying box No. 6 to indicate one year and forward a certified copy of the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
We concur: McKINSTER, J. RICHLI, J.