Filed 6/20/17 P. v. Brown 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Siskiyou)
----




THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

SKYLER RAMOND BROWN,

Defendant and Appellant.
C082650

(Super. Ct. Nos.
MCYK-CRF-2012-2289-2,
MCYK-CRM-2013-1802-2,
MCYK-CRBF-2014-1833-2)







Defendant Skyler Ramond Brown pleaded no contest to numerous counts. On appeal, he challenges a $25 fee included in the abstract of judgment, arguing the trial court never imposed that fee. The People concede error. The People separately contend defendant’s custody credit must be corrected. Both contentions have merit. We order the abstract of judgment amended and otherwise affirm.
BACKGROUND
In exchange for a stipulated term and the dismissal of various counts, defendant pleaded to various counts and enhancements. The trial court sentenced him to a 14-year eight-month aggregate term.
The trial court, concluding defendant was financially unable to pay, struck three recommended fees including a fee for reimbursement of appointed counsel. (Pen. Code, § 987.8.) The abstract of judgment, nevertheless, included a $25 fee “per PC 987.”
The court also awarded 1,129 days of custody credit (565 actual, 564 conduct). The abstract, however, reflected only 1,128 days.
DISCUSSION
I
The $25 Fee in the Abstract Must be Stricken
On appeal, defendant challenges the $25 fee in the abstract of judgment. He notes the trial court explicitly struck the fee for reimbursing appointed counsel. The People concede the fee must be stricken. We agree and order the abstract amended. (See People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 387-388 [the abstract must accurately summarize the oral pronouncement, including all fines and fees].)
II
The Abstract of Judgment Must be Corrected to Reflect the Credits Awarded
The People separately contend the abstract must be corrected to reflect the amount of credits awarded. We agree.
The trial court awarded 1,129 days of custody credit (565 actual, 564 conduct), but only 1,128 days (564 actual, 564 conduct) are reflected in the abstract. We order the abstract corrected. (See People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [“An abstract of judgment is not the judgment of conviction; it does not control if different from the trial court’s oral judgment”].)
DISPOSITION
The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment, striking the $25 fee imposed “per PC 987” and reflecting the award of 1,129 days of credit (565 actual, 564 conduct). The trial court is further directed to forward a certified copy of the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The judgment is otherwise affirmed.



NICHOLSON , J.



We concur:



RAYE , P. J.




MURRAY , J.