P. v. Patterson
Filed 3/24/09 P. v. Patterson 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. RICKY ARMSTRONG PATTERSON, Defendant and Appellant. | C059664 (Super. Ct. No. 07F9716) |
In November 2007, defendant Ricky Armstrong Patterson was found in possession of heroin, methadone, Vicodin, a hypodermic needle, and a syringe. He entered a negotiated plea of guilty in case No. 07F9716 to possessing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)) and admitted having served a prior prison term (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b); further section references are to the Penal Code). In accordance with the plea agreement, he was placed on Proposition 36 probation ( 1210.1) and was ordered to pay a $200 restitution fine ( 1202.4), a $200 probation fine to be effective if probation is revoked ( 1202.44), a $162.50 criminal laboratory fee (comprised of specified fees and fines and the statutory bases therefor), a $650 fine (comprised of specified fees and fines and the statutory bases therefor), a $20 court security fee ( 1465.8), and a $128 booking fee.
In February 2008, his probation was revoked but reinstated after defendant tested positive for drugs.
In March 2008, his probation was revoked but reinstated after defendant positive for cocaine, morphine, and marijuana.
In April 2008, defendant admitted violating his probation by twice testing positive for illegal drugs and by failing to report to probation as directed.
In May 2008, defendant, who was also on parole from state prison, was arrested for violating his parole and was returned to prison custody. The probation department notified the court of defendants incarceration and stated that a letter had been sent to him inquiring as to his willingness to continue on Proposition 36 probation.
In June 2008, the probation department sent a letter to defendant stating the Court has agreed to let you serve your sentence in case# 07F9716 concurrently with the term of custody you are currently serving in state prison as a result of the revocation of parole. However, when defendant appeared in court on June 27, 2008, the judge found that defendant was not eligible for Proposition 36 probation due to his three drug-related probation violations. Thus, defendant was sentenced to three years in prison (the middle term of two years plus a year for the prior prison term enhancement) to be served concurrently with the term he was then serving. The trial court awarded defendant 15 days of custody credit and ratified fees and fines previously imposed.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. His request for certificate of probable cause was granted.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks us 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.
Defendant filed a supplemental brief raising no cognizable issue on appeal. He simply asks what was the [trial] court decision and wonders whether the letter he received from the probation officer was wrong. Our recitation of the case above provides defendant with the information he seeks.
Having undertaken an examination of the record, we find no arguable error in favor of defendant. We note, however, the abstract of judgment fails to reflect the $128 booking fee which had earlier been imposed by the trial court. We shall direct the correction of the abstract. (People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200 [all fines and fees must be set forth in the abstract of judgment]; see People v. Sanchez (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1331-1332 [correcting abstract to reflect mandatory laboratory fee orally imposed]; People v. Goodwin (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1084, 1094, fn. 8 [correcting abstract to reflect restitution fine orally imposed].)
The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to amend the abstract of judgment to reflect the $128 booking fee imposed by the court and to send a certified copy of the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
SCOTLAND , P. J.
We concur:
BLEASE , J.
ROBIE , J.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line attorney.
