(Super. Ct. No. SF113374A)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mauro ,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Appointed counsel for defendant Primitivo De Letran Daan, Jr., asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We conclude defendant is entitled to additional conduct credits, but we find no other arguable errors. We will affirm the judgment as modified.
On November 10, 2009, Stockton police officers saw defendant making a hand-to-hand transaction with another person. Defendant was searched and found to possess 13.8 grams of rock cocaine.
Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5) and admitted two prior narcotics convictions (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (a)). The trial court imposed a stipulated nine-year term and ordered various fines and fees including a $200 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4)*fn1 subject to an additional $20 administrative fee. The trial court awarded defendant 12 days of presentence credit, consisting of eight actual days and four conduct days. Defendant did not obtain 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. (Wende, supra, 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.
Defendant filed a supplemental brief. He asserts the $20 administrative fee imposed by the trial court is unauthorized, but he is incorrect. Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (l) states in pertinent part that "any county may impose a fee to cover the actual administrative cost of collecting the restitution fine, not to exceed 10 percent of the amount ordered to be paid, to be added to the restitution fine and included in the order of the court[.]"
Defendant also contends the trial court failed to apply section 1202.4, subdivision (c) when imposing the restitution fine. Subdivision (c) requires the court to impose a restitution fine "unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so, and states those reasons on the record." But the record does not include any evidence of compelling or extraordinary reasons for not imposing the restitution fine, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the fine.
In addition, defendant claims the police report said he was searched with no results, and defense counsel was never given a toxicologist report. However, defendant's guilty plea waives his right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. (People v. LaJocies (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 947, 956-957.) And to the extent this claim attacks the validity of his plea, his ...