(Super. Ct. Nos. 10F00509, 10F00608)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robie, J.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
On April 30, 2010, in case No. 10F00509 (the vandalism case), defendant Daniel R. Haag was charged with vandalism, exhibiting a deadly weapon, and making criminal threats. A 1992 conviction for voluntary manslaughter was also alleged.
On June 29, 2010, in case No. 10F00608 (the ammunition case), defendant was charged with being a felon in possession of ammunition, and the prior strike conviction was realleged.
On the same date, defendant pled no contest to the allegation in the ammunition case and admitted the prior strike, on the understanding that he would be sentenced to four years in state prison and the charges in the vandalism case would be dismissed pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.
The trial court sentenced defendant to four years in state prison (two years for the offense of felon in possession of ammunition, doubled for the strike). The court awarded 241 days of presentence custody credit (161 actual days and 80 conduct days).*fn1 The court orally ordered defendant to pay a $30 criminal conviction assessment and a $30 court security fee, along with other fees not at issue in this appeal.
According to the prosecutor, the factual basis for defendant's plea is as follows: On December 23, 2009, defendant, a convicted felon, bought 10 Winchester .12-gauge Sabot slugs from a Sports Authority store. On September 29, 1992, in Santa Clara County, defendant was convicted of manslaughter with the use of a firearm.
Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal. The trial court denied his request for a certificate of probable cause.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 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 of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant.
Having undertaken an examination of the record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. However, we have discovered problems that require remand. Nowhere in the abstract is the statutory basis indicated for the criminal assessment fee (People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200) and the court security fee is missing the check in the appropriate checkbox.
We must therefore remand the matter with directions that the trial court direct the preparation of a corrected abstract of judgment and forward a certified copy of the corrected abstract to ...