P. v. Bornes
Filed 7/2/12
P. v. Bornes CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115
IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD
APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Shasta)
----
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
SPENCER LAMAR
BORNES,
Defendant and Appellant.
C068399
(Super. Ct. Nos. 11F1524, 11F181)
This
case comes to us pursuant to
25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).
as required by Wende, we affirm the
judgment.
In
an information filed March 25, 2011, defendant
Spencer Lamar Bornes was charged in case No. 11F181 with possession for sale of
methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378), transportation of methamphetamine
(Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)), and
(Health & Saf. Code, § 11364). It
was also alleged that defendant had a prior drug offense conviction and had
served a prior prison term. (Health
& Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (a); Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b).)
In
an information filed March 28, 2011, defendant was charged in case No. 11F1524
with possession for sale of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378),
maintaining a place for selling methamphetamine and marijuana (Health &
Saf. Code, § 11366), possession for sale of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code,
§ 11359), illegal possession of ammunition by a felon (Pen. Code, § 12316,
subd. (b)(1)), and receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd.
(a)). It was further alleged that
defendant had a prior drug offense conviction, had served a prior prison term,
and was on bail or released on his own recognizance at the time he committed
the offenses. (Health & Saf. Code, §
11370.2, subd. (c); Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b).)
On
April 19, 2011, defendant entered into a plea agreement wherein he agreed to
plead no contest to possession for sale of methamphetamine (Health & Saf.
Code, § 11378) in case No. 11F1524 and to transportation of
methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379) in case No. 11F181. He also admitted he had a prior drug offense
conviction within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision
(c). In exchange for his plea, it was
agreed the remaining counts and an additional case would be dismissed and he
would be sentenced to six years in state prison.
On
May 17, 2011, the trial court sentenced defendant to six years in
for sale of methamphetamine, an additional three years for the prior narcotics
offense conviction, and a concurrent upper term of four years for transportation
of methamphetamine. The trial court also
imposed (along with appropriate assessments, fees, and surcharges) a base fine
of $200, two $200 restitution fines, two stayed $200 parole revocation fines,
two $50 criminal laboratory fees, two $40 court security fees, and two $30
criminal conviction assessments.
Defendant was awarded 71 actual days and 71 conduct days for a
total of 142 days of custody credit.
Defendant
appeals. He did not obtain a
Our
review of the record reveals an omission from the abstract of judgment. As stated above, the trial court ordered
defendant to pay two $50 criminal laboratory fees, along with appropriate
assessments. Although the criminal
laboratory fees are reflected on the abstract of judgment, the accompanying
assessments are not. “All fines and fees
must be set forth in the abstract of judgment.â€
(People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200.) Thus, we direct the trial court to correct
the abstract of judgment to show the separate assessments and surcharges
imposed in connection with the criminal laboratory fees. (Id. at p. 1201.)
Having
undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that
would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed. The trial court
shall prepare an amended abstract of judgment in accordance with this opinion
and forward a certified copy thereof to the
RAYE , P. J.
We concur:
MURRAY , J.
DUARTE , J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] Counsel filed an opening brief that
sets forth the facts of the case and asks 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.
name="_ftn2" title="">[2] The parties stipulated that
the factual basis for the plea was set forth in the police reports, which were
not included in the record on appeal.
