IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta)
September 19, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
JEREMIAH DEAN PALMER, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. 09F6152)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robie , J.
P. v. Palmer
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 August 4, 2009, narcotics officers stopped a vehicle for an unspecified unsafe condition in which defendant Jeremiah Dean Palmer was a passenger. Both the driver and defendant were fidgety, talking rapidly, and attempting to talk at the same time. Defendant was searched pursuant to a probation search condition and was found to be in possession of 1.4 grams of methamphetamine and .6 grams of concentrated cannabis.
Defendant pled guilty to transportation of methamphetamine and was placed on Proposition 36 probation. Defendant also was ordered to pay a $200 restitution fine, another $200 restitution fine stayed pending successful completion of probation, a $720 fine with assessments, a $180 crime lab fee with assessments, a $30 court security fee, and a $30 criminal conviction assessment.
In March 2010, the probation department filed a petition for revocation of probation alleging defendant had used methamphetamine and marijuana. Defendant admitted the allegations and the court reinstated him on probation.
In April 2010, the probation department filed a second petition for revocation of probation alleging defendant had used methamphetamine and marijuana, had possessed marijuana, and had been noncompliant with treatment. Defendant admitted the allegations and the court reinstated him on probation.
In May 2010, the probation department filed a third petition for revocation of probation alleging defendant had used methamphetamine. Defendant admitted the allegations and the court set the matter for sentencing with the understanding that sentencing would be continued if defendant was in residential treatment.
In September 2010, on the date set for sentencing, the probation department filed a fourth petition for revocation of probation based on the filing of a new case alleging defendant had illegally possessed Vicodin.
On November 17, 2010, the trial court revoked defendant's probation and sentenced him to the upper term of four years in
state prison, but suspended sentence and committed defendant to the California Rehabilitation Center.
Defendant appeals. His request for a certificate of probable cause was denied.
Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks 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.
We have reviewed the record and note one clerical error. When the court granted probation, defendant was ordered separately, not as a condition of probation, to pay a $128 booking fee. When sentenced to prison, the court did not waive the booking fee and, in fact, reaffirmed the previously imposed fees. Although all the other fines and fees were properly set forth in the court's written order after judgment and sentencing, the booking fee was inadvertently omitted. Accordingly, we will direct the trial court to prepare a corrected written order of judgment reflecting the $128 booking fee. (See People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185-187.)
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare a corrected written order of judgment reflecting the $128 booking fee.
We concur: RAYE , P. J. MAURO , J.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.