Opinion
C089109
02-07-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANGELINA SALVINA STYERS, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 18F7695)
Appointed counsel for defendant Angelina Salvina Styers filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of this case and asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
As part of an undercover operation to buy narcotics at a casino, two agents told defendant they were looking to purchase $50 worth of illegal narcotics. Defendant told one agent she had a small rock she would sell to him for $20 and she would get him another $20 worth of drugs later. After the exchange of methamphetamine for $20 cash, casino security detained defendant. At the time of her arrest, defendant also had an active felony warrant.
Defendant pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) and admitted a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, § 1170.12). After considering briefing and argument from defendant and opposition from the prosecution, the trial court denied defendant's Romero motion. The trial court sentenced defendant to a stipulated term of 32 months, imposed various fines and fees, including a $195 criminal laboratory analysis fee, and granted defendant 16 days of presentence custody credits.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.
Per the probation report, this fee is an aggregation of a number of fines and assessments: $50 (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5), $50 (§ 1464), $10 (§ 1465.7), $5 (Gov. Code, § 76104.6), $20 (Gov. Code, § 76104.7), $25 (Gov. Code, § 70372, subd. (a)(1)), and $35 (Gov. Code, § 76000, subd. (a)(1)). --------
Defendant appealed without a certificate of probable cause. 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, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of her right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed and we have 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 an omission in the abstract of judgment which requires correction. The abstract of judgment does not reflect the $195 criminal laboratory analysis fee orally imposed by the trial court. We will order this omission corrected. (See People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 186-188.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is ordered to correct the abstract of judgment to include the $195 criminal laboratory analysis fee and to forward a certified copy of the corrected abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
/s/_________
Butz, Acting P. J. We concur: /s/_________
Mauro, J. /s/_________
Krause, J.