Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
NICHOLSON, Acting P. J.
In October 2006, defendant Harry Albert Sebree was arrested on suspicion of domestic violence. While in custody, defendant admitted to putting his hands down the pants of his girlfriend’s eight-year-old daughter on more than one occasion. Defendant attempted to defend his conduct by explaining that he had been using drugs, and had a substance abuse problem. He was nevertheless arrested and charged with four counts of committing a forcible lewd act upon a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1)).
In exchange for reducing the first two counts of the information to allege defendant committed a lewd act upon a child under the age of 14 in violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a), thus removing the force or fear element, and dismissal of all the remaining charges, defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to counts 1 and 2 of the amended information. Defendant also agreed to either of two possible sentences: (1) a stipulated term of six years in state prison; or (2) a stipulated term of eight years in state prison, execution of the sentence to be suspended pending successful completion of seven years of formal probation, local jail time, and completion of a court approved sex offender treatment program.
Defendant was then referred to a court appointed psychiatrist Dr. David Wilson for a Penal Code section 288.1 report. Dr. Wilson interviewed defendant and concluded he was not suited to a sex offender treatment program. After considering Dr. Wilson’s report, correspondence from defendant’s brother, defendant’s probation report, and the testimony of defendant and his family and friends, the court denied defendant probation, imposing the agreed upon term of six years in state prison. The court further imposed various fines and fees, ordering defendant to pay victim restitution to the State Restitution Board and awarded defendant 457 days of presentence credit. Defendant appeals.
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.
Our examination of the record reveals an error in that the trial court imposed only one $20 court security fee. Penal Code section 1465.8 requires the court impose a $20 court security fee for every conviction. Defendant was convicted on two counts of child molestation, thus the court should have imposed two mandatory $20 court security fees. (See People v. Schoeb (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 861, 865 [Pen. Code, § 1465.8 “unambiguously requires a fee to be imposed for each of defendant’s convictions. Under this statute, a court security fee attaches to ‘every conviction for a criminal offense’”].) We shall modify the judgment accordingly. Any party aggrieved by this procedure may petition for rehearing. (Gov. Code, § 68081.)
Additionally, we note there is a clerical error in the abstract of judgment. At sentencing, the trial court awarded defendant 457 days of presentence credit, 398 actual days and 59 days of conduct credit. The parties agreed the credits were correct. The abstract of judgment correctly lists 398 actual days of credit and 59 days of conduct credit; however, the abstract of judgment miscalculates the total days of credit, listing the total as 459 days instead of 457. Because this is simply a clerical error, we will correct it on appeal and direct the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment accordingly. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [“Courts may correct clerical errors at any time, and appellate courts . . . that have properly assumed jurisdiction of cases have ordered correction of abstracts of judgment that did not accurately reflect the oral judgments of sentencing courts.”].)
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 judgment is modified to impose an additional $20 court security fee. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to modify the abstract of judgment as follows: (1) to include an additional $20 court security fee, so there are two fees instead of just one; and (2) to reflect defendant’s total custody credits as 457 days. The trial court is further directed to forward a certified copy of the amended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
We concur: MORRISON, J., ROBIE, J.