The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hull ,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Super. Ct. No. CRF10173)
Defendant Christopher Ryan Bassett appeals from the imposition of sentence following a guilty plea to one count of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a). (All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.) Defendant contends, and the People agree, that the matter must be remanded to the trial court to correct discrepancies between the court's oral pronouncement of sentence, the sentencing minute order, and the abstract of judgment as to the penalty assessments imposed under section 290.3. Agreeing with both parties, we shall reverse and remand for further proceedings.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
As the facts of defendant's offense are irrelevant to the sole issue on appeal, we omit them.
By an amended complaint, defendant was accused of one count of penetration of genital or anal openings with a foreign object of a person under 14 and more than 10 years younger than defendant (§ 289, subd. (j); count 1) and one count of lewd or lascivious acts upon a child under 14 (§ 288, subd. (a); count 2). As to count 2, it was alleged that defendant had committed an offense making him ineligible for probation (§ 1203.066, subd. (a)(8)).
After defendant pled guilty to count 2 and admitted the section 1203.066 allegation, the People dismissed count 1. The trial court thereafter sentenced defendant to six years in prison (the middle term), with 51 days of presentence custody credit (45 days actual time and 6 days pursuant to § 2933.1).
The trial court orally imposed the following fines and fees: a $1,200 restitution fine (statutory basis not stated); a second restitution fine, suspended (statutory basis not stated); $90 in victim restitution (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)); $1,074.59 plus 10 percent interest to the victim's mother for lost wages and medical bills, with future restitution amounts reserved (statutory basis not stated); $1,140 as a "[p]enalty assessment" (§ 290.3); a $30 court security fee (§ 1465.8); and a $30 "conviction fee" (statutory basis not stated).
The sentencing minute order shows the following fines and fees: $1,200 as a restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)); $1,200 as a suspended restitution fine (§ 1202.45); the victim restitution imposed orally by the trial court ($90 pursuant to § 1202.4, subd. (f), and $1,074.59 plus 10 percent interest); "fine [amount unstated], plus penalty assessment of $1,140" (§ 290.3) (italics added); the $30 court security fee imposed orally by the trial court (§ 1465.8); and the $30 conviction assessment imposed orally by the trial court, with its statutory basis cited (Gov. Code, § 70373).
Finally, the abstract of judgment shows the restitution fines reflected in the sentencing minute order (§§ 1202.4, subd. (b), 1202.45); the victim restitution amounts previously mentioned, but with $1,074.59 specified as the amount due pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (f), and $90 as the amount due to the Restitution Fund; the previously mentioned court security fee (§ 1465.8) and criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373); and "fine, plus penalty assessment in the amount of $1,140" (§ 290.3) (italics added).
Defendant contends, and the People concede, that the abstract of judgment fails to itemize the separate fees, penalties, and surcharges imposed pursuant to section 290.3. Furthermore, as the People note, "the sentencing transcript, minute order, and abstract of judgment all differ, and none set forth the amount of the section ...