People v. Elguez CA3

Filed 3/10/14 P. v. Elguez CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Colusa) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C072570

v. (Super. Ct. No. CR53780)

JEREMY ANTHONY ELGUEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Jeremy Anthony Elguez stole his grandfather’s Jeep Cherokee and stripped it of parts. Before trial, defendant pleaded guilty to misdemeanor driving with a suspended or revoked license (Veh. Code, § 14601.1--count III), and admitted allegations that he had a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and served a prior

1

prison term (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).1 A jury subsequently convicted him of unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)--count I). The trial court sentenced defendant to seven years in prison, awarded 274 days of presentence credit, and orally ordered him to pay the following fines, fees, penalties and assessments: a $240 restitution fine (§ 1202.4); a $240 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45); a $40 court security fee (§ 1465.8); a $30 conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373); a “criminal fine in the base amount of $200” (§ 1464); a $140 fine (Gov. Code, § 76000); a $100 fine (Gov. Code, § 70372); $20 (Gov. Code, § 76104.7); $200 (Gov. Code, § 76000.5); $200 (§ 1465.7); and $4 (Gov. Code, § 76000.10).2 The abstract of judgment lists the $240 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), the $240 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45), a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8), which the trial court orally described as a court security fee, and the $30 conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred by failing to specify a valid statutory basis for the $200 “base” fine. We agree. The Attorney General argues that because the abstract of judgment lists a different set of fines and fees from those orally imposed, we must strike them from the abstract. In addition, the Attorney General claims the trial court should have levied a $40 penalty pursuant to Government Code section 76104.7 and a $40 penalty pursuant to Government Code section 76000.5. The Attorney General adds that the $200 assessment imposed pursuant to section 1465.7 could not be imposed under that statute, and that we should