Filed 7/25/17 P. v. Marichal 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(San Joaquin)
----



THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MANUEL FERLANDER MARICHAL,

Defendant and Appellant.
C083311

(Super. Ct. No.
STK-CR-FECOD-2016-0008216)






Appointed counsel for defendant Manuel Ferlander Marichal asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We find errors that require modification of the judgment to include mandatory fees not imposed. We affirm the judgment as modified.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 123-124.)
BACKGROUND
In 2002, defendant was convicted of robbery. In June 2016, he was found in possession of a chrome revolver.
An amended complaint charged defendant with being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)) and manufacturing or keeping a short-barreled shotgun or rifle (§ 33215). The information also alleged appellant had a prior felony “strike” conviction. (§§ 667, subd. (d), 1170.12, subd. (b).)
Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The trial court dismissed the remaining counts and struck the prior strike allegation. The trial court sentenced defendant in accordance with the plea agreement to a term of three years. The trial court awarded defendant 30 days of presentence custody credit, ordered defendant to pay a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), and imposed an identical parole revocation fine suspended unless parole is revoked (§ 1202.45). Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5.)
DISCUSSION
Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking us to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal.
(People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant. Having examined the record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
We have, however, found an error that requires modification of the judgment. The minute order and abstract of judgment reflect imposition of the mandatory $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8), and a $30 conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). However, these fees were not part of the oral pronouncement of judgment. The minute order cannot add anything substantive to the oral pronouncement of judgment. (People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 387-388.) The oral pronouncement is the actual rendition of judgment; the minutes and abstract cannot add anything substantive to it. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185-186; People v. Zackery, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at pp. 387-388.) We are, however, able to modify the judgment on appeal with respect to mandatory impositions (People v. Talibdeen (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1151, 1157), so we order imposition of the mandatory fees that were overlooked in the oral rendition of judgment.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified to incorporate the mandatory court operations and conviction assessments already reflected by the abstract of judgment. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.


NICHOLSON , J.



We concur:



BLEASE , Acting P. J.




DUARTE , J.