Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. 041038
OPINION
HULL, P.J.
This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).
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. (Wende, supra, 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.
Defendant Douglas Vorbach produced false identification when police stopped the car in which he was a passenger. Defendant and the driver were arrested and the car searched, revealing five packages of methamphetamine and seven packages of marijuana. Police did not discover defendant’s true identity until they ran his fingerprints following his arrest.
Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378--count I) and false personation (Pen. Code, § 529, subd. (3)--count VI; further undesignated references are to the Penal Code) in exchange for a 16-month lid on any possible prison sentence and dismissal of all other charges. He entered a waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 29 Cal.3d 754.
The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on formal probation for three years pursuant to specified terms and conditions. The court further ordered defendant to pay an $800 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (m)), of which “all but $200 and a $20 administrative fee will be stayed pending [defendant’s] successful completion of probation,” an $800 parole revocation fine “stayed pursuant to [section] 1202.45 pending [defendant’s] successful completion of parole should that result in this case,” an $800 probation revocation fine “stayed pursuant to [section] 1202.44 pending [defendant’s] successful completion of probation,” a $340 fee to reimburse probation for the cost to prepare the probation report, “a supervisory fee not to exceed $25 per month,” a $148 booking fee, a $20 court security fee, “crime lab and program fee of $160 each, including penalty pursuant to [Health and Safety Code section] 11372.5 and [Health and Safety Code section 11372].7 respectively,” and $360 in attorney’s fees, an amount defendant agreed was “reasonable.”
Several months later, defendant admitted violating probation by failing to appear as required. The court denied defendant’s request to withdraw his plea, and denied his request to reinstate probation, sentencing him to an aggregate term of two years eight months in state prison, minus 43 days of presentence custody credit. The court lifted the suspension of payment on the previously-imposed $800 restitution fine and ordered defendant to pay the previously-suspended probation revocation fine. The court also ordered that defendant pay an $800 parole revocation fine (stayed pursuant to section 1202.45), a $20 court security fee as to each count and a $148 booking fee.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error in favor of defendant.
We do, however, note some discrepancies between the trial court’s pronouncement of judgment and the abstract. In sentencing defendant to state prison, the court ordered him to pay a $40 security fee and a $148 booking fee. The abstract of judgment fails to reflect these fees. “All fines and fees must be set forth in the abstract of judgment. [Citations.]” (People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200.) We will order the abstract corrected to reflect these fees. (See People v. Sanchez (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1331-1332 [correcting abstract of judgment to reflect mandatory laboratory fee orally imposed]; People v. Goodwin (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1084, 1094, fn. 8 [correcting abstract to reflect restitution fine orally imposed].)
The abstract also fails to reflect the $160 criminal laboratory analysis fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5), the $160 drug program fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.7), the $340 fee for preparation of the probation report, and the $25 per month probation supervisory fee, all of which were imposed when defendant was originally placed on probation. We will order the abstract corrected to reflect each of these fees as well, with the exception of the $160 criminal laboratory analysis fee. With respect to that fee, we direct the trial court to articulate on the record the manner in which it calculated that amount, making any necessary corrections consistent with Health and Safety Code section 11372.5. The corrected amount shall be reflected in the abstract.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to clarify, on the record, its calculation of the criminal laboratory analysis fee. The court shall prepare an amended abstract of judgment as directed in this opinion and forward a certified copy of the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
We concur: ROBIE , J., BUTZ , J.