(Super. Ct. No. 10F01610)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Duarte ,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Temiga Louise Brown has asked this court to review the record to determine whether there exist any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We shall affirm the judgment, but shall order a corrected abstract of judgment to properly reflect all fees imposed, as explained post.
On February 13, 2010, defendant Temiga Louise Brown stole property belonging to a department store. She had suffered a prior petty theft conviction in 2007, for which she had spent time in jail.*fn1
Defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to petty theft with a prior theft-related conviction (Pen. Code, § 666*fn2 ) in exchange for a stipulated state prison sentence and the dismissal of the remaining count (a battery charge). The court sentenced her to the stipulated sentence--the low term of 16 months in state prison. The court awarded defendant 40 actual days and 40 conduct days for a total of 80 days of presentence custody credit.
Defendant appeals. Her request for a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, § 1237.5) was denied.
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. More than 30 days has elapsed, and we have 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 do, however, note an error in preparation of the abstract of judgment. The amended abstract of judgment correctly reflects the $200 restitution fine and the $200 parole fine. However, it fails to reflect the $20 court security fee and the $30 criminal conviction assessment (also known as a court facilities fee), both of which are also mandatory and therefore properly not waived by the trial court at the time it declined to impose any non-mandatory fees ...