P. v. Tuttle



















Filed 2/5/13 P. v. Tuttle 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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. DOUG TUTTLE, Defendant and Appellant.

C071999 (Super. Ct. No. 11F02988)

Appointed counsel for defendant Doug Tuttle asked this court to review
the record to determine whether there are any href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">arguable issues on appeal. (People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).)

We will direct the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment to
reflect the orally imposed fines and fees and the statutory basis for the prior
prison term enhancement, Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). Finding no other arguable error that would
result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the
judgment.

I

According to the police report (as
summarized in the amended probation report), officers observed a vehicle driven
by defendant run a red light. After
stopping the vehicle they smelled marijuana emanating from it. A records check indicated that defendant’s
driver’s license was suspended.
Searching the vehicle, officers found approximately 3.58 grams of
marijuana in a small pill container, approximately 291.02 grams of marijuana in
a grocery bag, and a brown bag containing three baggies holding, respectively,
27.4 grams, 28.24 grams, and 28.30 grams of marijuana. The officers also found a fully loaded .38
revolver in the backseat of the vehicle and a BB gun resembling a firearm. Defendant admitted owning the revolver and
the BB gun.

After his oral Marsdenhref="#_ftn1"
name="_ftnref1" title="">[1] motion was heard and denied, defendant
pleaded no contest to being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code,
former § 12021, subd. (a)(1), now § 29800, subd. (a)(1) -- count
one),href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2"
title="">[2] and admitted enhancement allegations that he
had a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and had
served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), in exchange for dismissal
of the remaining counts and a stipulated five-year state prison sentence (the
midterm of two years doubled for the strike, plus a year for the prior prison
term).

The trial court sentenced defendant
to the stipulated term, awarded one day of presentence custody credit,href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title="">[3] and ordered him to pay a $500 restitution
fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $500 parole revocation fine, suspended
unless parole is revoked (§ 1202.45), a $40 court security fee
(§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), a $30 court facility fee (§ Gov. Code,
§ 70373), a $287.78 main jail booking fee (Gov. Code, § 29550.2), and
a $25 administrative screening fee (Gov. Code, § 29550, subd. (c)).

II

Appointed counsel filed an href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">opening brief setting forth the facts of
the case and asking 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 the opening
brief. More than 30 days elapsed and we
received no communication from defendant.

In reviewing the record, we have
determined that the abstract of judgment does not include the orally imposed
$500 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) or the $500 parole revocation
fine suspended unless parole is revoked (§ 1202.45). In addition, the abstract of judgment does
not identify the statutory bases for the prior prison term enhancement
(§ 667.5, subd. (b)), or the orally imposed $287.78 main jail booking fee
(Gov. Code, § 29550.2) or $30 court facility fee (Gov. Code, § 70373,
which the reporter’s transcript incorrectly identifies as Government Code
section “703730”). We will direct the
trial court to correct the abstract of judgment.

Having undertaken an examination of
the entire record, we find no other arguable error 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 to include the orally imposed $500 restitution fine
(§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) and the $500 parole revocation fine suspended unless
parole is revoked (§ 1202.45). The
trial court is also directed to correct the abstract of judgment to identify
the statutory bases for the prior prison term enhancement (§ 667.5, subd.
(b)) and the orally imposed $287.78 main jail booking fee (Gov. Code,
§ 29550.2) and $30 court facility fee (Gov. Code, § 70373). The trial court shall forward a certified
copy of the corrected abstract of judgment to the California href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.





MAURO , J.





We concur:





BLEASE , Acting P. J.





MURRAY , J.