P. v. Jones
Filed 3/23/07 P. v. Jones 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Sacramento)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. QUINCY DEMAR JONES, Defendant and Appellant. | C052686 (Super. Ct. No. 04F10835) |
On October 29, 2004, defendant Quincy Demar Jones broke all 10 windows in the victims Nissan Pathfinder. The victims repair bill amounted to almost $6,000.
Defendant pled no contest to felony vandalism and admitted a strike prior (second degree robbery) in exchange for dismissal of other counts and a stipulated state prison sentence of four years (midterm of two years, doubled).[1] The court sentenced defendant to state prison accordingly.
Defendant appeals. His request for a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, 1237.5) was denied.
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 sentencing errors. The trial court orally imposed a $200 restitution fine (Pen. Code, 1202.4) but failed to orally impose the corresponding $200 parole revocation restitution fine (Pen. Code, 1202.45). However, the parole fine appears on the abstract of judgment. The trial court failed to orally impose the $20 court security fee (Pen. Code, 1465.8) but it too appears on the abstract.
In a footnote, defense appellate counsel states that the trial court orally imposed neither the parole fine nor the court security fee but since both are mandatory, there is no possibility of relief if challenged, citing People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 854. Accordingly, we will order the judgment modified to provide for a $200 parole fine and a $20 court security fee. As both appear on the abstract, the abstract requires no amendment.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified to provide for a $200 parole fine and a $20 court security fee. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.
ROBIE , J.
We concur:
MORRISON , Acting P.J.
BUTZ , J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
[1] Defendant also entered no contest pleas in case No. 7211 to misdemeanor battery on a cohabitant and in case No. 0643 to misdemeanor spousal or cohabitant abuse in exchange for credit for time served. In other cases (Nos. 4905, 3259 and 1789), probation was terminated.
