P. v. Hann

Filed 3/9/06 P. v. Hann CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Placer)

----

Defendant John Richard Hann pled no contest to one count of conspiracy to commit theft and admitted he had served five prior prison terms. If defendant did not use drugs prior to sentencing, the court would strike three of the priors and impose a four-year prison term; otherwise, the court could impose a maximum sentence of seven years, pursuant to a Cruz waiver. (People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247; People v. Casillas (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 445, 451-452 [defendant may waive protections of Penal Code section 1192.5].)

Defendant was arrested for and charged with use of a controlled substance and resisting arrest prior to sentencing. At sentencing, the prosecutor and defense counsel agreed that defendant had violated the conditions of his release pending sentencing and that the court should impose the seven-year maximum term of imprisonment. The court sentenced defendant to a seven-year prison term. Defendant filed a notice of appeal and requested a certificate of probable cause, which the trial court 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.

The trial court failed to order defendant to pay a $20 court security fee pursuant to Penal Code section 1465.8, subdivision (a). This fee is mandatory. (Cf. People v. Wallace (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 867, 877.) As such, it is subject to imposition on appeal even if the prosecutor failed to object in the trial court. (People v. Talibdeen (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1151, 1157.) We shall modify the judgment accordingly.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is modified to include a $20 court security fee, which â€