IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)
September 16, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
MAURICE LAFY FIELDS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. 10F07052)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Duarte, J.
P. v. Fields
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Appointed counsel for defendant Maurice Lafy Fields 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, but shall modify the judgment to add a $200 parole revocation fine, stayed pending successful completion of parole, and direct the trial court to include in the judgment all pertinent fees and fines originally contained in the probation order, as explained post.
Defendant was charged by complaint in October 2010*fn1 with one count each of the possession of cocaine base and methamphetamine, and a prior conviction for robbery in 1985. The parties stipulated to a brief factual basis which provided that in October, defendant had a usable amount of cocaine base in his possession.
In November, defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to possession of cocaine base. In exchange, the trial court dismissed the remaining count and allegation of prior conviction. At the December 9 sentencing hearing, the court imposed a stipulated prison term of two years, stayed its execution, and granted probation (conditioned, inter alia, on successful participation in a six-month residential drug rehabilitation program).
It reduced the restitution fine recommended in the proposed conditions of probation to $200 (along with the parallel stayed fine payable upon revocation of probation). With respect to the other fines and fees listed in the recommended conditions of probation, the court stated only: "All other mandatory fees and fines are imposed. Those that are discretionary will be waived."*fn2 The final probation order (as interlineated) listed a number of fines and fees (with their statutory bases) that it designated as "mandatory." Neither the court's minutes nor the abstract of judgment include any of these fines or fees other than the restitution and probation revocation fines.
The program terminated defendant's participation. On February 7, 2011, the trial court revoked probation and lifted the stay on execution of sentence. It awarded conduct credits equal to defendant's time in custody, and "transferred" the previously imposed fines and fees.
We appointed appellate counsel for defendant. Counsel has filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking us to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel advised defendant of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief. We received no filing from defendant.
We have examined the record on appeal, and do not find any arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. We do, however, note that corrections need to be made to the abstract of judgment, due to the trial court's failure to appropriately designate the fines and fees that it intended to impose, and failure to include these specified fines and fees in the abstract of judgment.
It is the oral imposition of sentence that constitutes the judgment in an action. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 (Mitchell); People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 387-388 (Zackery).) This means it is the oral rendition of judgment that must specify the amounts and the statutory bases for all fines and fees that the court imposes (People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200 (High)), or at minimum include an incorporation of an accurate written breakdown by reference.
Further, because the abstract of judgment is the order that executes the judgment by transferring defendant into custody and authorizing the performance of its provisions (Mitchell, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 185; In re Black (1967) 66 Cal.2d 881, 889-890), it must be an accurate summary of the judgment, including all fines and fees. (High, supra, 119 Cal.App.4th at p. 1200; Zackery, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at pp. 387-388; People v. Sanchez (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1332; People v. Hong (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1071, 1080.)
This was not done; therefore, we must direct the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment. The amended abstract of judgment should include the pertinent fees and fines formerly contained in the probation order (with their statutory bases, including the pertinent statutory basis for the booking and classification fees), as well as the breakdown of the penalty assessments.
Further, the court failed to impose and stay the mandatory parole revocation fine. As it is mandatory, however, we may modify the judgment to include it. (People v. Talibdeen (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1151, 1157.)
The judgment is modified to include a stayed $200 fine payable on revocation of parole. As modified, it is affirmed. The trial court shall prepare an amended abstract of judgment in accordance with our directions in this opinion and forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
BLEASE, Acting P. J. NICHOLSON , J.