(Super. Ct. No. 09F06854)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robie , Acting P. 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Defendant Adam Ramsey pled no contest to attempted escape from a jail facility by force and admitted both a firearm enhancement and a strike offense. In exchange for his plea, a second strike offense and a separate charge of firing at an inhabited building were dismissed. The prosecution also agreed not to file any charges in an unrelated incident as part of the plea agreement. Defendant was sentenced to a negotiated term of six years in prison, doubled to 12 years for the strike, plus an additional year for the firearm enhancement, bringing the entire term of imprisonment to 13 years.
On appeal, defendant raises two issues. First, he argues the trial court erred in denying his Marsden*fn1 motion for new appointed counsel and that this error is cognizable on appeal even after his no contest plea pursuant to the plea agreement. Second, he contends the abstract of judgment must be amended to reflect the $40 court security fee the trial court actually imposed instead of the $80 fee shown in the abstract.
We agree with the People that defendant's arguments regarding his Marsden motion are not cognizable on appeal absent a claim that his plea was not voluntarily and intelligently entered. We find merit in the second contention, however, and conclude the $80 security fee recorded in the abstract of judgment is the result of a clerical error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment but order the trial court to correct the abstract to reflect a $40 court security fee.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The facts of the underlying offense are not relevant to this appeal.
Defense counsel Clemente Jimenez was appointed to represent defendant. Jimenez had represented him before, in a recent case procedurally isolated from this one. When defendant made a Marsden motion in this case, the trial court held the required hearing and inquired into his reasons for requesting new appointed counsel.
Defendant articulated two reasons for his request: first, Jimenez had failed to file a notice of appeal in his previous case and, second, there had been "a severe breakdown in communication" between them. The trial court found defense counsel had represented defendant properly and denied the motion.
Ten days later, defendant entered into a plea agreement with a negotiated prison term. During sentencing, the court ordered defendant to pay a court security fee of $40. The abstract of ...