IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)
January 27, 2012
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
MARLON DANE LEON, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. 09F01490)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hull , Acting P. J.
P. v. Leon
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Marlon Dane Leon asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant and no concerns regarding presentence credits; however, we do find the trial court failed to impose certain mandatory fees. We will modify the judgment accordingly and affirm the judgment as modified.
During a probation search of defendant's residence, law enforcement officers found a working 400,000 volt stun gun. They also found a Smith and Wesson, semi automatic handgun containing 13 live rounds, two working digital scales, three bags of marijuana with a total weight of 186.7 grams, and other indicia of drug sales.
Defendant was arrested and charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)), being a felon in possession of ammunition (Pen. Code, § 12316, subd. (b)(1)), possession of marijuana for sale while armed with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (a)(1); Health & Saf. Code, § 11359), and being a felon in possession of a stun gun (Pen. Code, § 12651, subd. (a)).
Defendant pleaded no contest to all charges and allegations with no agreements made regarding his sentence. Defendant was subsequently sentenced to an aggregate term of three years eight months in state prison: two years for possessing marijuana for sale, with an additional year for being armed with a firearm, and a consecutive term of eight months for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court imposed no additional time for defendant's two remaining convictions.
On the prosecution's motion, defendant's violation of probation charge was dismissed in the interest of justice. Numerous fines and fees were imposed, including a $120 court security fee (Pen. Code, § 1465.8) and a $90 criminal assessment fee (Gov. Code, § 70373). Defendant also was awarded 270 days of custody credit (135 actual and 135 conduct). Defendant appeals with a certificate of probable cause.
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asked 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 have 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.
Our review does disclose that the court failed to impose a mandatory court security fee for each of defendant's four convictions, but rather imposed the fee on only three of defendant's convictions. (Pen. Code, § 1465.8.) We shall modify the judgment to include the additional fee.
Our review further discloses that the court failed to impose a mandatory court facilities assessment for each of defendant's four convictions, but rather imposed the assessment on only three of defendant's convictions. (Gov. Code, § 70373.) We shall direct the trial court to modify the abstract to include this additional fee as well.
The judgment is modified to impose a total of $160 in court security fees and $120 in court facilities assessment fees. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to amend the abstract of judgment to include the additional $40 court security fee and additional $30 court facilities assessment. A certified copy of the amended abstract shall be forwarded to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
We concur: BUTZ , J. MAURO , J.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.