Filed 1/29/18 P. v. Smith 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.
TYWAIN LAMEL SMITH,
Defendant and Appellant.
| C085038
(Super. Ct. No. 16FE019985)
|
Appointed counsel for defendant Tywain Lamel Smith asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Our review reveals that several mandatory fines were not imposed. We will modify the judgment to impose those fines and otherwise affirm.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
I. BACKGROUND
After the trial court denied his motion to suppress, defendant agreed to plead no contest to possessing methamphetamine while armed with a loaded firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1, subd. (a)) and admit to a prior strike. In exchange, the remaining charges would be dismissed, and he would receive a stipulated term.
In taking his plea, the parties agree to a factual basis as follows: Defendant was found with 7.35 grams of methamphetamine while armed with a loaded revolver. Seven years before that, he had been convicted of attempted robbery, a strike offense.
Defendant pleaded no contest to possessing methamphetamine while armed with a loaded, operable firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1, subd. (a)) and admitted to suffering a prior strike. The remaining charges were dismissed.
The trial court imposed the stipulated six-year term (the middle term of three years, doubled for the strike). It awarded 480 days of credit and ordered various fines and fees.
II. DISCUSSION
Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and requests that we review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his 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.
One error requires correction. At sentencing, the trial court ordered defendant to “[p]ay a restitution fine of $300.” The court did not, however, impose (and stay) a corresponding $300 parole revocation fine, nor did it impose a $40 operations assessment and $30 conviction assessment.[1] Those fines are mandatory, and we will therefore modify the judgment to impose them. (See Pen. Code, §§ 1202.45, 1465.8; Gov. Code, § 70373; People v. Rodriguez (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 372, 376; People v. Woods (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 269, 272.)
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified to impose a $300 parole revocation fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.45); that fine is stayed unless parole, postrealease supervision, or mandatory supervision is revoked. The judgment is further modified to impose a $40 operations assessment (Pen. Code, § 1465.8) and a $30 conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). As modified, the judgment is affirmed.
/S/
RENNER, J.
We concur:
/S/
BLEASE, Acting P. J.
/S/
DUARTE, J.
[1] The mandatory fines, nevertheless, appear in the minute order and abstract of judgment.
