Filed 2/28/18 P. v. Grady 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.
GARRY M. GRADY,
Defendant and Appellant.

A150988

(Marin County
Super. Ct. No. SC195945A)


Appellant Garry M. Grady appeals from a judgment following his guilty plea to one count of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and his admission to a prior strike conviction (§ 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)). Appellant’s 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 issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellate counsel advised appellant of his right to file a supplementary brief to bring to this court’s attention any issue he believes deserves review. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) Appellant has not filed such a brief. We have reviewed the record, find no arguable issues, and affirm.
BACKGROUND
In April 2016, appellant was charged by amended complaint with one count of second degree robbery (§ 211). According to the probation report, appellant committed an unarmed bank robbery.
The amended complaint also alleged eight strikes (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d), 667, subds. (b)–(i)) and eight prior serious felonies (§ 667, subd. (a)), based on eight separate convictions from 1994 for federal armed bank robbery (18 U.S.C. § 2113, subds. (a) & (d)). The People wrote a letter to the court indicating their intent to seek dismissal of seven of the eight prior convictions pursuant to section 1385.
Appellant filed a motion asking the court to dismiss the remaining strike allegation. The motion argued that appellant had engaged in no unlawful activity since the prior convictions, was unarmed in the present offense, and had helped other ex-offenders and disadvantaged persons during his work at nonprofit organizations since his release from federal prison. In support of the motion, appellant submitted personal and professional letters of support, as well as certificates demonstrating his participation in various in-custody training and education programs since his arrest for the instant offense. The trial court denied the motion, noting that while appellant has “done a great deal with his life in between his release from federal prison until he was arrested in this case, . . . the People have acted compassionately in this case in not alleging all of the strikes.”
Appellant then entered a guilty plea to the second degree robbery count and admitted the prior strike, pursuant to a plea agreement providing for a stipulated six-year prison sentence. The remaining strikes were dismissed on the People’s motion.
Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced appellant to six years in prison (double the midterm sentence of three years (§§ 213, subd. (a)(2); 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)). The court awarded custody credits and imposed fines and fees. The court reserved jurisdiction for purposes of victim restitution.
DISCUSSION
Because appellant pled guilty and did not file a motion to suppress below, the scope of the reviewable issues is restricted to matters based on constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings resulting in the plea, and post-plea sentencing issues. (People v. DeVaughan (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 895–896; People v. Shelton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 759, 766.)
Appellant was adequately represented by legal counsel throughout the proceedings. Appellant completed a plea form that described the constitutional rights he was waiving by entering a no contest plea, the trial court confirmed appellant understood those rights, and the court found defendant freely and intelligently waived those rights. Defense counsel stipulated there was a factual basis for the plea. Appellant was properly advised of the consequences of his plea by the written plea form and the trial court.
The sentence was consistent with the plea agreement. The sentencing credits and fees were proper, with the exception of a $25 “administration screening fee” imposed orally by the trial court but omitted from the minutes and abstract of judgment. This fee is imposed on “each person arrested and released on his or her own recognizance upon conviction of any criminal offense related to the arrest other than an infraction.” (§ 1463.07.) Appellant was not released on his own recognizance following his arrest. We modify the judgment to omit this fee; however, since it was not included on the abstract, the abstract does not need to be amended. (See People v. Walz (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1364, 1367 [“When there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.”].)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified to omit the $25 administration screening fee. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed.


 




SIMONS, J.



We concur.




JONES, P.J.




NEEDHAM, J.





(A150988)