IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)
October 26, 2012
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
CHRISTOPHER MARK JOHNSTONE, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. 11F03456)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Blease , Acting P. J.
P. v. Johnstone
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
After the trial court denied defendant Christopher Mark Johnstone's motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, § 1538.5),*fn1 defendant pled no contest to carrying a concealed dirk or dagger (former § 12020, subd. (a)) and admitted a prior conviction for battery with infliction of serious bodily injury (§§ 243, subd. (d), 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12), in return for the dismissal of all remaining charges and enhancements and a 32-month stipulated state prison term (the lower term of 16 months, doubled for the strike).
The parties stipulated that on May 9, 2011, defendant was found to have a six- or seven-inch sharpened blade knife, not in a protective cover, in his front pocket after being pulled over for a Vehicle Code violation and patted down, and that he was convicted of battery with serious bodily injury on February 6, 2007.
The trial court thereafter denied defendant's motions for continuance, to discharge his appointed counsel (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118), and to withdraw his plea. On April 6, 2012, the court imposed the stipulated 32-month sentence.
The trial court awarded defendant one day of presentence custody credit. The court imposed a $240 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) and a $240 suspended restitution fine (§ 1202.45), a $40 court security fee (§ 1465.8), a $30 facility assessment fee (Gov. Code, § 70373), a $340 jail booking fee (Gov. Code, § 29550.2), and a $62 jail classification fee (Gov. Code, § 29550.2) (the two latter fines subject to a determination of defendant's ability to pay).
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 must remand the matter to the trial court, however, for correction of the abstract of judgment. First, although the court correctly imposed restitution and suspended restitution fines of $240 (the minimum statutory amounts as of January 1, 2012), the abstract of judgment erroneously gives the amounts as $200. Second, although the court imposed a $62 jail classification fee, the abstract of judgment misstates that amount as $60. Third, although the court properly stated the statutory bases for all fines and fees on the record, the abstract of judgment fails to do so as to the facility assessment fee, the jail booking fee, and the jail classification fee.
The judgment is affirmed. The matter is remanded to the trial court with directions to order the preparation of a corrected abstract of judgment and to forward a certified copy of the corrected abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
We concur: BUTZ , J. HOCH , J.