Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County Nos. RIF145270 & RIF146239, Janice M. McIntyre, Judge. (Retired judge of the Riverside Super. Ct., assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6, of the Cal. Const.)
Laura P. Gordon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Gil Gonzalez and Kelley Johnson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RAMIREZ, P. J.
Defendant and appellant Patrick Williams’s sole contention on appeal is that it was unconstitutional to use a juvenile adjudication to enhance his sentence. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Defendant pled guilty to five charges filed under two different trial court case numbers. In case No. RIF145270, defendant pled guilty to attempted murder (count 1—Pen. Code, §§ 187, 664), burglary (count 2—§ 459), unauthorized use of an access card (count 3—§ 484g), and falsely representing himself to a peace officer (count 4—§ 148.9, subd. (a)). Defendant also admitted the allegations, as to the attempted murder count, that he personally used a deadly weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)) and he personally inflicted great bodily injury in circumstances involving domestic violence (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)). He also admitted a prior conviction for assault with a deadly weapon. (§ 245, subd. (a)(1).) This was actually a juvenile adjudication. In case No. RIF146239, defendant pled guilty to making a criminal threat (§ 422), and also admitted the same prior juvenile adjudication.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
At sentencing, the court orally pronounced imposition of “a court security fee of $20” in case No. RIF145270 and “a court security fee in the amount of $20” in case No. RIF146239. The abstract of judgment in case No. RIF146239 attributes the $20 court security fee to “1465.9(a)(1).” The abstract of judgment in case No. RIF145270 indicates an $80 court security fee “per PC 1465.8.” The sentencing minute orders in both cases state “Pay $20.00 Court Security Fee (per convicted charge) pursuant to 1465.9(a)(1)pc.”
DISCUSSION
A. Juvenile Adjudications as Strikes
Defendant acknowledges that during the pendency of this appeal the use of juvenile adjudications to enhance adult sentences was upheld by our Supreme Court in People v. Nguyen (July 2, 2009, S154847) __ Cal.4th __ [2009 Cal.App. Lexis 6847]). As defendant acknowledges, we are bound by Nguyen, and thus we uphold the use of defendant’s juvenile adjudication to enhance his sentence.
B. Court Security Fees
Although not raised by the parties, we note that the reporter’s transcript indicates oral pronouncement of only one court security fee in case No. RIF145270. Furthermore, while the court security fee was correctly included on a per-conviction basis in the sentencing minutes and abstracts of judgment, the fee was misattributed to section 1465.9 in the sentencing minutes and the abstract in case No. RIF146239. There is no section 1465.9 in the Penal Code. Instead, the court security fee is mandated by section 1465.8.
“Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.” (People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385.) “The clerk cannot supplement the judgment the court actually pronounced by adding a provision to the minute order and the abstract of judgment.” (Id. at pp. 387–388.) Section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1), is mandatory and provides, in relevant part, that “a fee of twenty dollars ($20) shall be imposed on every conviction for a criminal offense....” (Italics added.) Where no court security fee is imposed at all the judgment should be modified on appeal to include the fee. (People v. Crabtree (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1293, 1328.)
Accordingly, the judgment in case No. RIF145270 should be modified to include a $20 court security fee for each of defendant’s four convictions, and the trial court should amend both sentencing minute orders and the one abstract of judgment to refer to section 1465.8.
DISPOSITION
The judgment in case No. RIF145270 is modified to include four $20 court security fees. The court is directed to amend its sentencing minute order in case No. RIF145270 to attribute the court security fees to section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1). The court is further directed to amend its sentencing minute order and abstract of judgment in case No. RIF146239 to attribute the court security fee to section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1), and to forward a copy of the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other respects, the judgments are affirmed.
We concur: GAUT J., KING J.