IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (El Dorado)
August 11, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
LOUIS FRANCIS MENDICINO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. P09CRF0418)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Raye , P. J.
P. v. Mendicino 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
On September 29, 2009, a criminal complaint was filed charging defendant Louis Mendicino with robbery (count I; Pen. Code, § 211),*fn1 burglary of a residence (count II; § 459), and assault with a firearm (count III; § 245, subd. (a)(2)). The complaint also alleged as to counts I and II that defendant was armed with a firearm. (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1).)
On January 13, 2010, the People moved to amend the complaint to add a charge of grand theft (count IV; § 487, subd. (a)), and defendant pled no contest to that count in return for the dismissal of the remaining charges and enhancement allegations.
According to the original complaint and the facts adduced at the postplea victim restitution hearing, defendant, acting in concert with others, entered the residence of Timothy Wells and Christina Bishop on September 25, 2009, and stole 10 marijuana plants legally cultivated by Wells under Proposition 215. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.5.)
After defendant waived time for sentencing, the trial court placed him on three years' probation, including one year in county jail. Defendant waived good time and work time presentence custody credits.*fn2 The court reserved jurisdiction to determine restitution.
The trial court imposed a restitution fine of $200 (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) and a suspended restitution fine of $200 to be paid if probation was revoked (§ 1202.44). The court also imposed a court security fee of $30, a courthouse construction fund assessment of $30, and a fine of $100 plus penalty assessments to be paid at a rate of $50 per month starting within 30 days of defendant's release from custody. Neither in the reporter's transcript nor in the clerk's transcript are the statutory bases of these fines and fees specified.
The trial court held a contested restitution hearing on August 17, 2010. The court ordered restitution to Timothy Wells in the amount of $14,908 plus a 10 percent administrative fee, and to Christina Bishop in the amount of $1,456, payable at the rate of $50 per month. Because there were five defendants, the restitution award was joint and severable as to each defendant.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal on October 18, 2010.
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 elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
We conclude, however, that the matter must be remanded to the trial court with directions to amend the minute order that lists the fines and fees imposed, so as to specify the statutory basis of each fine and fee imposed. (People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200-1201.)
The matter is remanded to the trial court with directions to correct the sentencing minute order by specifying the statutory basis of all fines and fees imposed. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
We concur: BUTZ, J. HOCH, J.