Filed 8/1/17 P. v. Cunningham CA1/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE


THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
NICOLE YVONNE CUNNINGHAM,
Defendant and Appellant.
A150744

(Mendocino County
Super. Ct. No.
SCUK-CRCR-2016-87169)


Defendant Nicole Yvonne Cunningham (who also goes by her married name of Nicole Bivin) appeals the judgment imposed following her plea of no contest to several charges and imposition of a prison sentence of six years eight months in accordance with her plea agreement. Her attorney has submitted a brief in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and has advised defendant of her right to submit a supplemental brief, which she has not done. This court’s review of the record disclosed no issues warranting further briefing except with respect to the calculation of two fines included in the sentence, as to which further briefing was requested and submitted.
The factual basis for the charges against defendant were summarized by the prosecutor briefly as follows: “On the 27th of August of [2016] in the County of Mendocino, the defendant entered into a vehicle. At approximately 50 miles an hour she drove that vehicle into another vehicle that was occupied by her mother, Marilyn Phillips, along with a passenger in that vehicle, Teija Isotalo.”
By information filed October 6, 2016, defendant was charged with one count of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, subd. (a)), two counts of assault with a deadly weapon, an automobile (§ 245, subd. (a)(l)), and one count of criminal threats (§ 422), with an allegation that she had suffered a prior prison term within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b)) and that she had suffered two prior felony convictions within the meaning of section 1203, subdivision (e)(4). On December 14, 2016, the court denied defendant’s motion under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. On December 21, 2016, the prosecutor orally added a fifth count to the information: a violation of section 594, subdivision (b) (felony vandalism).
Defendant pleaded no contest to both counts of assault with a deadly weapon and to the vandalism count and admitted the prior prison term, and the balance of the information was dismissed. The plea was pursuant to a bargain for a stipulated six-year eight-month sentence, with defendant waiving her right to appeal. The plea form that defendant signed before entering her plea specified the prison term that would be imposed but in the section labelled “Restitution, Statutory Fees, and Assessments” indicated that all fines and assessments were “TBD,” i.e., to be determined.
Defendant having pled no contest, explicitly waived her right to appeal, and not having requested or received a certificate of probable cause, only the most limited issues may properly be considered on appeal. Defendant was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings and we find no issues affecting the entry of her plea or the prison sentence imposed in accordance with her plea agreement that merit further briefing.
The amount of the fines to be imposed not having been specified as part of the plea agreement, we may properly consider on appeal whether the fines were properly calculated. The court imposed a $71 fine pursuant to section 1202.5 and a court security fee of $120 pursuant to section 1465.8. The parties agree these amounts are correct. Although section 1202.5 imposes a fine of only $10, additional assessments and surcharges are properly applied to the base fine. A court security fee of $40 was properly imposed for each of defendant’s three convictions.
The judgment is affirmed.



Pollak, J.


We concur:


McGuiness, P. J.
Siggins, J.