People v. Best CA3

Filed 2/9/22 P. v. Best CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C092742

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STKCR20204991) v.

DARIN GAVIN BEST,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Darin Gavin Best has asked this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Our review of the record revealed the abstract of judgment listed certain fees that the trial court did not orally impose, and we will order correction of the abstract of judgment. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment. We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In April 2020, defendant possessed a controlled substance (methamphetamine) in a local prison. Defendant was charged with conspiracy to commit a crime (provide an inmate with a controlled substance) (Pen. Code, § 182, subd. (a)(1))1 and unauthorized possession of a controlled substance in a prison (§ 4573.9, subd. (a)). It was further alleged defendant had a prior serious felony conviction. (§§ 1170.12, subd. (b), 667, subd. (d).) In August 2020, defendant pleaded no contest to violating section 4573.6, subdivision (a). The remaining count and allegations were dismissed. That same day, the trial court sentenced defendant to three years in state prison, consecutive to any current sentence. The trial court imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a corresponding $300 parole revocation restitution fine (suspended unless probation is revoked) (§ 1202.45), and a $30 surcharge (§ 1464). Despite the trial court’s failure to so state during sentencing, the abstract of judgment further indicates that the trial court imposed a $40 court operations fee (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)) and a $30 criminal conviction assessment fee (Gov. Code, § 70303). Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal and obtained a certificate of probable cause. DISCUSSION We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of his right