People v. Crosley CA3

Filed 12/11/20 P. v. Crosley CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C091921

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 19CF06035)

v.

JAMES LUCKY CROSLEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant, James Lucky Crosley, has asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We will modify the judgment to correct the amount of the mandatory conviction assessment fee imposed and will direct the trial court to correct other clerical errors and omissions in the sentencing order and abstract of judgment. Finding no other errors that are favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment as modified.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The People’s September 18, 2019, complaint charged defendant with driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol within 10 years of a felony DUI or vehicular manslaughter (Veh. Code, §§ 23152, subd. (a), 23550.5, subd. (a);1 count 1) and driving with a blood-alcohol content 0.08 percent or higher within 10 years of a felony DUI conviction or vehicular manslaughter (§§ 23152, subd. (b), 23550.5, subd. (a); count 2). It was also alleged as to both counts that defendant had suffered a conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of section 23152, subdivision (a) in June of 2013 and that his blood-alcohol content had been more than 0.15 percent (§ 23578). On January 8, 2020, defendant pled guilty to count 2 and admitted the enhancements. The remaining count was dismissed with a Harvey2 waiver. The parties stipulated the factual basis for his plea would be taken from the probation report. On March 11, 2020, the trial court denied defendant’s request for probation and sentenced defendant to the upper term of three years for defendant’s tenth DUI conviction. Defendant was awarded credit for nine actual days, plus eight conduct days for a total of 17 days custody credit. The court also imposed a $300 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $300 suspended parole revocation restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.45), as well as DUI fines and fees as incorporated from page 10, number 3 of the probation report. These amounts were a base fine of $460 (§ 23530) and penalty assessments of: $92 (Pen. Code, § 1465.7), $230 (Gov. Code § 70372, subd. (a)), $460 (Pen. Code, § 1464), $322 (Gov. Code, § 76000), $46 (Gov. Code, § 76104.6), $184 (Gov. Code, § 76104.7), $4 “EMAT”, and $50 (§ 23645). Also imposed in the incorporated portion of the probation report