P. v. Tyrell

Filed 8/16/06 P. v. Tyrell 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 Jonathan Regent Tyrell pled no contest to forgery of a document (Pen. Code, § 470, subd. (c); undesignated section references are to the Penal Code), possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), battery causing serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d)), and annoying or molesting a child under the age of 18 (§ 647.6, subd. (a)), a misdemeanor. Defendant admitted he committed the narcotics offense while released on bail or his own recognizance. (§ 12022.1.)

BACKGROUND

In setting forth the factual basis for the felony offenses, the prosecutor recounted that on December 6, 2004, defendant presented a forged document to the court or sheriff's department with the intent to defraud. On August 7, 2005, defendant was found in possession of a usable quantity of methamphetamine. While he was released on bail or his own recognizance for that offense, defendant assaulted an individual, causing serious bodily injury.

The court sentenced defendant to an aggregate prison term of five years four months, consisting of the lower term of two years for the battery conviction, consecutive eight-month terms for each of the other two felonies, and a consecutive

two-year term for the enhancement.^[1] The court imposed restitution and parole revocation fines of $1,000 each. (§§ 1202.4, 1202.45.)

DISCUSSION

I

Wende

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief which sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there is any arguable issue 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.

II

Mandatory Drug Laboratory Analysis Fine and Assessments

The otherwise learned trial court failed to impose a $50 drug laboratory analysis fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5, subd. (a)) plus applicable penalty assessments.^[2] It is settled that this fee and the assessments are mandatory. (People v. Taylor (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 454, 456.) In the interest of judicial economy and because the trial court's error and the appellate remedy is clear, we modify the judgment without requesting supplemental briefing. (Ibid.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is modified to impose a $50 drug laboratory analysis fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5) plus applicable penalty assessments. As modified, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to issue an amended abstract of judgment reflecting this modification (including the applicable penalty assessments and payees) and to send a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (People v.

High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200 [â€