P. v. Saeteurn
Filed 8/15/12 P. v.
Saeteurn 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NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
(Sacramento)
----
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
KAO SENG SAETEURN,
Defendant and Appellant.
C068560
(Super. Ct. Nos. 06F10648,
08F08167)
Appointed counsel for defendant Kao
Seng Saeteurn asked this court to review the record to determine whether there
are any arguable issues on
appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We find no arguable
error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. We note that the trial court did not identify
all fines and fees on the record, and that the abstract of judgment does not
specify all the fines and fees imposed upon defendant. Nor does the abstract reflect the date of
conviction. Therefore, we remand the
matter to the trial court to set forth the fines and fees on the record, and to
amend the abstract of judgment to reflect the fines and fees imposed upon
defendant and the date of conviction. In
all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
Defendant was
charged in two Sacramento
County Superior Court cases.
In case
No. 06F10648, on or about December 7,
2006, defendant used a firearm in an attempt to kidnap an adult
victim.[1]
Defendant was
charged with attempted kidnapping
(Pen. Code, §§ 664, 207, subd. (a) - count 1),[2]
false imprisonment (§ 236 - count 2), assault with a firearm (§ 245,
subd. (a)(2) - count 3), and unlawful
taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a) -
count 4). Counts 1 and 2 alleged
firearm use pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivision (b), and
count 3 alleged firearm use pursuant to section 12022.5, subdivisions (a)
and (d).
In case
No. 08F08167, between August 1,
2005, and December 31,
2005, defendant placed his penis in the vagina of T.T., who was
less than 14 years of age, while they lived on Star
Stone Way.
(Count 1.) Between October 1, 2005, and June 1, 2007, defendant placed
his penis in the vagina of T.T., who was under 14 years of age, while they
lived on 42nd Avenue. (Count 2.) On or about June 11, 2008, defendant,
who was more than 10 years older than the victim, placed his hand on T.T.’s
breast, placed his hand on her vaginal area, and orally copulated her. (Counts 6, 7, and 8.)
Defendant was
charged with three counts of lewd and lascivious conduct with a person under 14
years of age (§ 288, subd. (a) - counts 1-3) and five counts of
lewd and lascivious conduct with a person 14 or 15 years old with the defendant
being at least 10 years older than the person (§ 288, subd. (c)(1) -
counts 4-8). It was further alleged
that defendant committed the offenses in counts 4 through 8 while he was on
bail release in case No. 06F10648 (§ 12022.1).
On November 2, 2010, defendant
entered a plea bargain in both cases. In
case No. 06F10648, he pled no contest to attempted kidnapping
(count 1) and admitted the firearm allegation; in case No. 08F08167,
he pled no contest to five child
molestation charges (counts 1, 2, and 6-8). Defendant admitted to being released on bail
in case No. 06F10648 when he committed the offenses in case
No. 08F08167. Defendant’s pleas and
admissions were given in exchange for the dismissal of all other charges and a
stipulated prison sentence of 20 years 6 months.
On May 19,
2011, the trial court imposed the agreed upon sentence as follows: (1) In case No. 06F10648, a term of
two years six months (one-half middle term of five years) for the attempted
kidnapping plus ten years for the personal firearm use; and (2) in case
No. 08F08167, consecutive terms of two years each (one-third middle term of six
years) for the child molestations in counts 1 and 2, consecutive terms of
eight months each (one-third middle term of two years) for the child
molestations in counts 6, 7, and 8, and a consecutive term of two years
for the on-bail enhancement.
The court ordered
defendant to register as a sex offender.
In case No. 06F10648, defendant received presentence custody
credits of 119 days (104 actual, 15 conduct), and in case No. 08F08167, he
received presentence custody credits of 1,104 days (960 actual, 144 conduct) --
a total of 1,223 days. The court imposed
$200 restitution fines in each case in accordance with sections 1202.4 and
1202.45. As to other fines and fees, the
court stated, “The mandatory fees and fines, the court security surcharge, and
other mandatory fees and fines will be imposed on both cases. Any fees or fines not mandated will be
suspended for good cause.”
Defendant appeals
with a certificate of probable cause.
Appointed counsel
filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks us to
determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende,
supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel
advised defendant of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of
the date of filing of the opening brief.
More than 30 days have elapsed and we have received no communication
from defendant.
We have undertaken
an examination of the entire record and find no arguable issues that would
result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. However, we have discovered an error relating
to the imposition of fines and fees and their recording in the abstract of
judgment.
Aside from
specifying the $200 restitution fines (§§ 1202.4, 1202.45) for each case,
the court simply ordered that the “mandatory fees and fines will be imposed,”
and that “fees or fines not mandated will be suspended for good cause.” The abstract of judgment sets forth some of
the fines and fees suggested by the probation officer for each case, but does not
include all of them nor does it specify to which case the fine or fee
applies. The abstract also does not
reflect the $200 fine suspended unless parole is revoked imposed in each case
(§ 1202.45).
In
1192, we “recognize[d] that a detailed recitation [by the court] of all the
fees, fines and penalties on the record may be tedious, [but] California law
does not authorize shortcuts.” (
fines and fees must be set forth in the abstract of judgment” to enable the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to “fulfill its statutory duty to
collect and forward deductions from prisoner wages to the appropriate
agency.” (Ibid.) Because the present
record does not comply with these requirements, we must remand the matter to
the trial court to set forth all the fines and fees imposed upon defendant.
We also note that
the abstract of judgment does not reflect the date of conviction for the
offenses.
DISPOSITION
This matter is
remanded to the trial court to set forth on the record the fines and fees
imposed upon defendant and to prepare an amended abstract of judgment properly
reflecting the imposition of such fines and fees and the date of conviction for
the offenses. The trial court shall
forward a certified copy of the amended abstract of judgment to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other respects, the judgment is
affirmed.
HOCH , J.
We concur:
RAYE , P. J.
MAURO , J.
[1]
The facts for both cases are taken from the facts stated by the prosecutor and
accepted by defendant at the time of entry of his pleas and admissions.
[2]
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
