People v. Holland CA2/4

Filed 2/18/14 P. v. Holland CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B248508 (Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. MA056668)

v.

FREDERICK EUGENE HOLLAND,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Bernie C. LaForteza, Judge. Affirmed as modified and remanded with directions. California Appellate Project, Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director and Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Herbert S. Tetef, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Appellant Frederick Eugene Holland challenges the imposition of a $10 fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.5) and a related $29 assessment in connection with his sentence. Because the sentencing minute order and abstract of judgment improperly reflect the imposition of the fine and assessment, we modify the judgment to eliminate them, affirm the judgment as modified, and direct the preparation of a corrected abstract of judgment.

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On July 19, 2012, a one-count information was filed, charging appellant with possession of cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5). Accompanying the charge were allegations that appellant had suffered three prior drug-related convictions (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (a)) and had served three prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). Appellant pleaded not guilty. On March 7, 2013, appellant entered into a plea agreement under which he was to be given a term of four years in state prison. In accordance with the agreement, the information was amended to include a charge of residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459), to which appellant pleaded nolo contendere. As provided in the plea agreement, the trial court imposed the four-year middle term for residential burglary. In addition, at the sentencing hearing, the court ordered the imposition of a $400 restitution fund fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $400 parole revocation fine with payment stayed (Pen. Code, § 1202.45), a $40 court operations assessment (Pen. Code, § 1465.8), and a $30 criminal conviction