People v. Coreas CA2/5

Filed 3/9/15 P. v. Coreas CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B257455

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA406341) v.

ENRIQUE FRANCISCO COREAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Monica Bachner, Judge. Reversed in part, and affirmed in part. James M. Crawford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Scott A. Taryle, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Rene Judkiewicz, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _____________________________

Defendant and appellant Enrique Francisco Coreas was charged by information with two counts of driving under the influence (DUI) within 10 years of a prior felony conviction for DUI or vehicular manslaughter (Veh. Code, § 23550.5, subd. (a) [counts 1 and 2]).1 The information further alleged that defendant committed a prior felony DUI offense (§ 23153, subd. (b)). Defendant pled guilty to count 1. The trial court accepted the plea, and granted the prosecutor’s motion to dismiss count 2 and the allegation under section 23153, subdivision (b). Defendant was sentenced to 16 months in state prison. Relevant here, the trial court orally imposed various fines and fees, including a $200 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $200 parole revocation fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.45), and a $33 Laboratory Service Fund fee (Pen. Code, § 1463.14, subd. (b)). Defendant contends, and the Attorney General concedes, that the $33 lab fee was unauthorized, because defendant’s conviction in count 1 was for violation of section 23550.5, subdivision (a), which is not enumerated among the violations for which the lab fee may be imposed. Additionally, the Attorney General notes that the abstract of judgment must be amended because the $200 parole revocation fine that the trial court imposed at sentencing was erroneously omitted. Our review of the record shows that the abstract of judgment contains two errors. It includes the $33 lab fee, which the trial court did not orally impose at the sentencing hearing, and omits the $200 parole revocation fine, which it did properly impose at the hearing. We remand for the trial court to prepare an amended abstract of judgment to strike the $33 lab fee and include the $200 parole revocation fine, to correctly reflect its oral pronouncement. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment. Our resolution of the case should not be understood as an implied agreement with defendant’s argument, and the Attorney General’s concession, that the $33 lab fee imposed under Penal Code section 1463.14, subdivision (b), does not apply to a