Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. SF106902A
MORRISON, Acting P. J.
On November 15, 2007, defendant Vernell “Fuzzy” Shaw pled guilty to dissuading a witness from testifying. (Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (a)(2).) Pursuant to the terms of his plea agreement, he was sentenced to the low term of 16 months in state prison and the “standard fines.” Defendant’s request for a certificate of probable cause was denied. (§ 1237.5.)
There are no additional facts to be gleaned in this case. There is no police report in the record. There is no factual basis stated for the plea. There is no probation report. The minutes of hearing indicate the court found there was a factual basis for the plea based on the stipulation of counsel, however there is no such stipulation contained in the reporter’s transcript. The court did not even ask for a factual basis for the plea. (See People v. Willard (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1329.) However, because no certificate of probable cause was obtained, we cannot consider issues which go to the validity of the plea. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5.)
Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
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, found errors which require us to return this matter to the trial court for resentencing.
The court indicated it was imposing “standard fines” without delineating the statutory basis for any such fines. All fines, fees, and penalties must be stated separately at sentencing, with the statutory basis specified for each; and the abstract of judgment must reflect these matters. (People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200.) “Although we recognize that a detailed recitation of all the fees, fines and penalties on the record may be tedious, California law does not authorize shortcuts.” (Ibid.) Accordingly, the matter must be remanded for the court to rectify its oversight.
Also, if the court has not already done so, the court is directed to correct the error previously pointed out to it by appellate defense counsel with respect the defendant’s custody credits. Specifically, the court granted defendant 65 days of actual credit and 32 days of good time credit for a “total of 92.” The correct amount of credits should have been 97. That correction should also be reflected in the abstract of judgment.
DISPOSITION
The sentence is vacated and the matter is remanded for further proceedings to correct the sentencing errors noted in this opinion. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
We concur: ROBIE, J., CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.