P. v. Geiger
Filed 3/14/07 P. v. Geiger 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Shasta)
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ERIC CHRISTOPHER GEIGER, Defendant and Appellant. | C053298 (Super. Ct. No. 06F1048) |
In January 2006, defendant Eric Christopher Geiger willfully, unlawfully and by means of force or fear took property from the person, possession, and immediate presence of D.S.[1]
Defendant pleaded guilty to second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211, 212.5, subd. (c); further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code) and admitted one strike allegation ( 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and two prior prison term allegations ( 667.5, subd. (b)). In exchange, six related counts, a serious felony allegation ( 667, subd. (a)) and a prior prison term allegation were dismissed.
Defendant was sentenced to state prison for 12 years, awarded 149 days of custody credit and 23 days of conduct credit, and ordered to pay a $2400 restitution fine ( 1202.4); a $2400 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked
( 1202.45); a $10 theft fine ( 1202.5) plus a $10 state penalty assessment ( 1464), a $1 DNA penalty (Gov. Code,
76104.6), a $1.50 state court construction penalty (Gov. Code, 70372), a $7 county courthouse construction penalty (Gov. Code, 76100, 76245), a $2 criminal surcharge ( 1465.7); and a $20 court security fee ( 1465.8).
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
We note that the abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the penalty assessments on the theft fine. All fines and fees must be set forth in the abstract of judgment. [Citations.] (People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect a $10 theft fine
( 1202.5), a $10 state penalty assessment ( 1464), a $1 DNA penalty (Gov. Code, 76104.6), a $1.50 state court construction penalty (Gov. Code, 70372), a $7 county courthouse construction penalty (Gov. Code, 76100, 76245), and a $2 criminal surcharge ( 1465.7). The court is further directed to forward a certified copy of the corrected abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
BLEASE , Acting P. J.
We concur
RAYE , J.
CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.
Publication Courtesy of California lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Escondido Property line Lawyers.
[1] Because defendant pleaded guilty and waived referral to probation, our statement of facts is taken from the information.
