P. v. Gorbet
Filed 12/1/08 P. v. Gorbet 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. ANDREW ELI GORBET, JR., Defendant and Appellant. | C058989 (Super. Ct. No. 08F913) |
While snuggling on the coach with his seven-year-old stepdaughter, defendant Andrew Eli Gorbet, Jr., put his finger in her private. While her mother was away at work, defendant would regularly touch his stepdaughters genitals, bottom, and made her touch his genitals.
Defendant was charged with four counts of digital penetration with a child under 10 years old, six counts of lewd and lascivious acts on a child under the age of 14 years old and one count of inflicting corporal injury on a child. Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to three counts of lewd and lascivious acts on a child under the age of 14 years old, and one count of inflicting corporal injury on a child. In exchange for his plea, the remaining counts against him were dismissed and it was agreed he would be sentenced to an aggregate term of 11 years 4 months in prison. Defendant was sentenced in accordance with the plea. He did not obtain 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 review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 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.
Our review of the record discloses an error in the recitation of fines and on the abstract of judgment. We have explained that all fines and fees must be set forth on the record and in the abstract. (People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200.) Thus, the abstract must separately state the base amounts and penalty assessments upon the drug program fee and laboratory analysis fee.
Here, the court imposed the following fines, And so youre further ordered to pay a monetary fine of $200, plus penalty assessment, which total [$]650, plus a $20 court security fee. You are also ordered to pay a [$]2,200 restitution fine, plus a 10 percent administrative fee; a second restitution fine of $2,200, stayed pending successful completion of parole. The abstract of judgment reflects the imposition of the $20 court security fee and then states pay a criminal fine in the amount of $650.00, which includes the penalty assessments.
The abstract of judgment filed by the trial court must separately list, with the statutory basis, all fines, fees and penalties imposed. (People v. High, supra, 119 Cal.App.4th at p. 1201.) Although . . . a detailed recitation of all the fees, fines and penalties on the record may be tedious, California law does not authorize shortcuts. . . . At a minimum, the inclusion of all fines and fees in the abstract may assist state and local agencies in their collection efforts. [Citation.] Thus, even where the Department of Corrections [and Rehabilitation] has no statutory obligation to collect a particular fee, . . . the fee [and penalty assessments] must be included in the abstract of judgment. [Citation.] (Id. at p. 1200.)
Because the record here does not reflect the statutory basis for the $200 monetary fine or the penalty assessments consequent to that fine, we will direct the court to amend the abstract of judgment to include both the statutory basis for the fine and a breakdown of the penalty assessments attached to it.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no other arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to correct the abstract of judgment and to forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
ROBIE , J.
We concur:
SCOTLAND , P. J.
RAYE , J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line Lawyers.
