IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin)
September 28, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
JULIO JUAREZ, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. SF115326A)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Nicholson , Acting P. J.
P. v. Juarez
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 June 27, 2010, 17-year-old defendant Julio Juarez, while a passenger in a car, pulled out a .9-millimeter handgun and fired about six times at the victim who was in his car. The victim suffered three gunshots wounds to his body.
Defendant entered a plea of guilty to attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187/664; count 2) and admitted an amended allegation that he personally used a firearm within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.5, subdivision (a), in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts and allegations and a stipulated sentence of 11 years in state prison, that is, the midterm of seven years for the offense plus the midterm of four years for the gun enhancement. The court sentenced defendant accordingly.
Defendant appeals. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, § 1237.5).
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 note an error. At sentencing, the trial court ordered defendant to pay "the normal fees and fines as required by law." The abstract of judgment reflects a $200 restitution fine, a $200 parole fine, a $40 court security fee, a $30 criminal conviction assessment fee, and a $20 administrative surcharge for the restitution fine. The trial court is required to specify the fees and fines and cite the statutory authority for each on the record. (People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200 ["[a]lthough we recognize that a detailed recitation of all the fees, fines and penalties on the record may be tedious, California law does not authorize shortcuts"].) Although the trial court erred, there is no reason to remand since the mandatory fees and fines appear on the abstract.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: ROBIE , J. HOCH , J.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.