People v. Jewkes CA3

Filed 7/12/16 P. v. Jewkes CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE, C079556

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CM042665)

v.

JAMES JUSTIN JEWKES,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant James Justin Jewkes appeals from the judgment entered following his no contest pleas in two separate cases. In case No. CM041916, defendant pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a).)1 In case No. CM042665, defendant pleaded no contest to felony failure to appear. (Pen. Code, § 1320, subd. (b).) At sentencing, the trial court redesignated defendant’s possession of methamphetamine offense as a misdemeanor in light of the passage of the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (Prop. 47, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code.

1

4, 2014)). The trial court sentenced defendant to three years in prison on the failure to appear offense and to a concurrent one-year sentence on the possession of methamphetamine offense. The trial court also ordered defendant to pay various fines, fees, and penalty assessments. On appeal, defendant contends the abstract of judgment improperly reflects that he is required to pay two court operations assessments and two conviction assessments. We disagree. However, because we conclude there is a clerical error in the abstract of judgment, we will remand the matter for correction of that error. In a supplemental brief, defendant argues for the first time that the trial court erred by failing to reduce his felony failure to appear offense to a misdemeanor. We disagree and shall affirm the judgment as modified. DISCUSSION2 A. Court Operations Assessments and Conviction Assessments In its oral pronouncement of sentence, the trial court ordered defendant to pay a $40 court operations assessment and a $30 conviction assessment for the misdemeanor offense and the felony offense. The abstract of judgment reflects that defendant is required to pay two court operations assessments and two conviction assessments. On appeal, defendant contends that the abstract of judgment contains an error because it should only reflect that he is required to pay one court operations assessment and one conviction assessment. We disagree. We conclude that the trial court properly imposed a $30 conviction assessment and a $40 court operations assessment for the misdemeanor offense and the felony offense. The text of the relevant statutes requires an assessment be imposed on “every conviction for a criminal offense.” (Gov. Code, § 70373, subd. (a)(1) [“[t]o ensure and maintain