P. v. Romano CA2/4

Filed 4/22/13 P. v. Romano CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B242232

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA364494) v.

TELESFORO ROMANO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Monica Bachner, Judge. Affirmed as modified. Richard Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, David A. Wildman, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ______________________________

Telesforo Romano appeals from the judgment entered after he pled no contest to charges of kidnapping and rape and admitted personally using a gun in committing both offenses. His appointed counsel filed a Wende brief. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) On November 1, 2012, we directed appointed counsel to send the record and a copy of counsel’s brief to Romano and notified Romano of his right to respond within 30 days. We received no response. The notice of appeal states that the appeal is based upon the sentence or other matters occurring after entry of the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(4).) We have reviewed the whole record under People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, focusing upon matters that arose after entry of the plea. Our review revealed that the minute order and abstract of judgment do not reflect the amount of the sexual offender fine under Penal Code section 290.3,1 or the amount and statutory bases of penalty assessments on the fine. We invited the parties to brief the issue of penalty assessments. After considering their briefs, we modify the judgment to reflect penalty assessments on the sex offender fine in the amount of $780. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.