People v. Goodman CA3

Filed 12/8/15 P. v. Goodman CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C079016

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 14F07190)

v.

REGINA RENEE GOODMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Regina Renee Goodman has asked this court to review the record to determine whether there exist any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We shall modify the judgment to correct erroneous imposition of fees and fines, and affirm the judgment as modified.

1

BACKGROUND Defendant was charged by amended complaint with vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)--count one), receipt of a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a)-- count two),1 and two counts of receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)--counts three and four). The amended complaint alleged that, as to counts one and two, defendant was twice convicted of violations of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a) (§ 666.5, subd. (a)), and that defendant served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Pursuant to a negotiated plea bargain, defendant pleaded no contest to count one and admitted the prior theft allegation in exchange for dismissal of the balance of charges and allegations against her and a stipulated split sentence of three years, with 16 months in county jail and the remaining 20 months suspended under mandatory supervision. 2 The trial court sentenced defendant to three years in county prison, to be served locally pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (h)(5)(B), as a split term, with 16 months served in county jail and the remaining 20 months suspended under mandatory supervision subject to written mandatory supervision conditions. The court orally imposed mandatory fees and fines as set forth in the written mandatory supervision conditions, but “only in the minimum amounts.” The written mandatory supervision conditions included the following fees and fines: a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4); a $300 “additional restitution fine” pursuant to section “1202.44,” stayed pending successful completion of probation; a $40 court security surcharge fee (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), a $30 court facility fee (Gov. Code, § 70373), and a criminal impact fee