Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County Super. Ct. Nos. FVI802223 & FVI802224. Annemarie G. Pace, Judge.
Charles R. Khoury, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, and Elizabeth S. Voorhies, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RAMIREZ, P. J.
Defendant and appellant Leo Shawn Zimmerman pled guilty to willful infliction of corporal injury on a cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a), count 1 in case No. FVI802224), dissuading a witness by threat (§ 136.1, subd. (c)(1), count 3 in case No. FVI802223), and two counts of making criminal threats (§ 422, counts 1 & 2 in case No. FVI802223). Defendant contends, and the People agree, that two prison priors should have been stricken rather than stayed. We affirm and modify.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
BACKGROUND
Defendant’s plea was predicated upon the trial court’s indicated sentence of 10 years eight months in prison for both cases. In addition to pleading guilty to the crimes in both cases, defendant also admitted (1) inflicting great bodily injury as alleged in the corporal injury on a cohabitant count; (2) a prior domestic violence conviction (§ 273.5, subd. (a)); (3) a prior serious felony conviction for first degree burglary (§ 459); and (4) three prior prison felonies.
The trial court sentenced defendant first on the corporal injury on a cohabitant charge (case No. FVI802224). The court imposed the low term (for a conviction with a prior) of two years, doubled it to four years for the strike, and then added three years consecutive for the infliction of great bodily injury. The court imposed and stayed one-year sentences for each of the prison priors. This resulted in a term of seven years in case No. FVI802224.
The trial court continued by sentencing on case No. FVI802223. On counts 1 and 2, the criminal threat counts, the court imposed one-third the two-year midterm (eight months) doubled pursuant to the strike “for sixteen months consecutive.” On count 3, the witness dissuasion count, a term of one-third the two-year midterm doubled to 16 months was also imposed consecutively, but was then stayed pursuant to section 654. The court imposed one-year consecutive sentences for each of the prison priors and stayed two of them. This resulted in a sentence of three years eight months in case No. FVI802223, and a total sentence for both cases of 10 years eight months.
Prior to discussing the counts in both cases, the trial court stated: “No booking fees. Order the [section] 296 samples; $20 Court Security Fee; $200 [sections] 1202.4 and 1202.45 fine.” The minute orders and abstracts of judgments in both cases each reflect imposition of the above fine and fee amounts. The original sentencing minute orders also both stated the sentences were to be consecutive to the sentence in the other case. Two days after sentencing the trial court, on its own motion, issued minute orders correcting the custody credits awarded to defendant. The corrective minute orders state only that the sentence in case No. FVI802223 is to be consecutive to the sentence in case No. FVI802224. The abstracts of judgment in each case state that each is to be consecutive to the other.
PRISON PRIORS
Defendant contends that the trial court erred in staying rather than striking the two prior prison term enhancements in case No. FVI 802223. The People agree, and state that they also do not oppose striking all three stayed enhancements in case No. FVI802224.
Enhancements for prior felony prison terms under section 667.5, subdivision (b), must be imposed unless stricken. (People v. Langston (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1237, 1241.)
As the parties note, the record indicates the trial court’s intention to set a total sentence of 10 years eight months. In order to achieve that total sentence the trial court would have had to strike all of the stayed prison priors.
COURT SECURITY FEE
Only one court security fee was imposed in each case. However, case No. FVI802223 contained three counts.
Section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1), provides in relevant part that, “a fee of twenty dollars ($20) shall be imposed on every conviction for a criminal offense....” (Italics added.)
This language is mandatory. “Section 1465.8’s legislative history supports the conclusion the Legislature intended to impose the court security fee to all convictions after its operative date.” (People v. Alford (2007) 42 Cal.4th 749, 754, italics added.) This includes convictions in which the sentence was stayed pursuant to section 654. (People v. Crittle (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 368, 371.) Where no 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. FVI802223 should be modified to include the $20 court security fee for each of the three counts of which defendant was convicted.
AMENDED ABSTRACTS OF JUDGMENT
The amended abstract of judgment in case No. FVI802224 incorrectly states that “**[SENTENCE] TO RUN CONSECUTIVE TO FVI802223.” However, the two amended minute orders indicate that case No. FVI802223 is to run consecutive to case No. FVI802224, and not the other way around.
The amended abstract of judgment in case No. FVI802223, in the row for the second criminal threats count, has the “consecutive 1/3 non-violent” column marked rather than the “consecutive 1/3 violent” column. However, making a criminal threat is an act of violence. (People v. Solis (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1002, 1023.)
We have the inherent power to correct clerical errors in abstracts of judgment to make records reflect the true facts. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185.) Accordingly, the amended abstracts should be corrected.
DISPOSITION
The judgment in case No. FVI802224 is modified to strike all three prison priors. The judgment in case No. FVI802223 is modified to strike the two stayed prison priors, and to impose two additional $20 court security fees. The trial court is directed to file new amended sentencing minute orders memorializing the striking of the prison priors and the imposition of the additional court security fees in case No. FVI802223. The trial court is also directed to amend the abstracts of judgment, in which (1) the stayed prison priors are deleted from box 3 in both cases; (2) the two additional $20 court security fees are included in box 11 in case No. FVI802223; (3) the erroneous reference to being consecutive to case No. FVI802223 is removed in case No. FVI802224; and (4) the “consecutive 1/3 violent” box is marked in the row for the second criminal threats count. The trial court is directed to forward copies of the amended abstracts of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other respects, the judgments are affirmed.
We concur: HOLLENHORST, J., MILLER, J.