Filed 7/21/17 P. v. Sears CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE


THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JONATHAN SEARS,
Defendant and Appellant.

A150223

(Solano County Super. Ct.
No. VCR223849)


Defendant and appellant Jonathan Sears pled no contest to one count of grand theft from the person (Pen. Code § 487, subd. (c)), and the trial court imposed a two-year prison term. Sears’ counsel has raised no issue on appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable sentencing or other post-plea issues. (See Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not filed a supplemental brief. We direct the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment and otherwise affirm.
BACKGROUND
In July 2015, Sears was charged by information with second-degree robbery (§ 211), false imprisonment (§ 236), and unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)). The information also alleged a section 667.5, subdivision (b) prior prison term allegation.
In September 2016, the information was amended to add a count alleging grand theft from the person (§ 487, subd. (c)).) Sears pled no contest to that offense and the remainder of the information was dismissed. The plea was pursuant to a bargain providing for probation with credit for time served. The trial court obtained a Cruz waiver from Sears, which gave the “trial court the power to ‘withdraw its approval of the defendant’s plea and impose a sentence in excess of the bargained-for term,’ if the defendant willfully fail[ed] to appear for sentencing.” (People v. Puente (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1143, 1146, fn. 3.)
Sears was released on his own recognizance pending sentencing. The probation office lost contact with Sears, and, on November 7, 2016, the trial court issued a bench warrant. On November 22, Sears was arrested on the warrant.
In December 2016, the trial court found that Sears’ failure to appear was willful and sentenced him to the mid-term of two years in prison. The court awarded Sears 216 days of presentence credits and imposed a $600 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $600 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45), a $30 “criminal conviction” assessment, a $40 “security surcharge,” and a $10 fine under section 1202.5 (applicable to theft offenses).
Sears filed a notice of appeal specifying it is based “on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea.”
DISCUSSION
Sears’ no contest plea restricts the scope of the appeal before us. Because he did not request a certificate of probable cause, his appeal is limited to “postplea claims, including sentencing issues, that do not challenge the validity of the plea.” (People v. Cuevas (2008) 44 Cal.4th 374, 379.)
We have reviewed the entire record and have found no arguable appellate issues. Pursuant to the Cruz waiver, it was proper for the trial court to impose a sentence in excess of the plea agreement because Sears willfully failed to appear. (People v. Puente, supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at p. 1151.) The court’s sentence was proper. The fines and fees imposed by the court are proper, but they are not properly reflected in the court’s minute order and the abstract of judgment. First, the section 1465.8 court operations assessment (referred to by the court as the “security surcharge”) is in the amount of $40, not $30. Second, the Government Code, section 70373 conviction assessment is in the amount of $30, not $40. Finally, the $10 fine imposed by the trial court under section 1202.5 is not reflected in the minute order or abstract of judgment.
Appellate counsel advised Sears of his right to file a supplemental brief to bring to this court’s attention any issue he believes deserves review. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) Sears did not file a supplemental brief. There are no legal issues that require further briefing.
DISPOSITION
The trial court is directed to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect the imposition of a $40 assessment under section 1465.8, a $30 assessment under Government Code, section 70373, and a $10 fine under section 1202.5. The court is further directed to transmit the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed.







SIMONS, J.



We concur.




JONES, P.J.




NEEDHAM, J.