The People v. Saechao CA3

Filed 9/11/13 P. v. Saechao CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C073516

v. (Super. Ct. No. 12F04670)

CHIA L. SAECHAO,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Chia L. Saechao 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).) Based on our review of the record, we will modify the judgment to include a mandatory fee and applicable penalty assessments and surcharges. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment as modified.

1

I Because this matter was resolved by plea, the facts are taken from the stated factual basis. Defendant possessed .29 grams of methamphetamine, a useable amount. In exchange for a stipulated sentence of 32 months in prison, he pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and admitted a prior strike conviction. Defendant asked the trial court to dismiss his prior strike conviction pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497. After considering the request and the factors set forth in People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, the trial court denied the request. The trial court sentenced defendant to the negotiated term of 32 months in prison (16 months doubled based on the prior strike conviction), awarded him 520 days of presentence credit, and imposed $240 restitution fund fines (Pen. Code, §§ 1202.4 & 1202.45), a $40 court security fee and a $30 court facility fee. All other non-mandatory fees and fines were waived. The abstract of judgment and minute order, however, reflect the imposition of an additional mandatory $50 criminal laboratory analysis fee under Health and Safety Code section 11372.5, subdivision (a). Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5.) II Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking 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 the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant. Based on our review of the record, we have identified an error in the pronouncement of judgment. The minute order and abstract of judgment reflect the