1 Filed 4/24/14 P. v. Hendrix CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

## COPY

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)

----

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. JERMAINE HENDRIX, Defendant and Appellant. C073341 (Super. Ct. No. 10F01072)

This appeal comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ). An amended information accused defend ant Jermaine Hendrix of one count of lewd conduct with force or violence upon a child under the age of 14 (count 1; Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1)), 1 five counts of lewd conduct u pon a child under the age of 14

1 Undesignated section refere nces are to the Penal Code.2 (counts 2 & 4-7; § 288, subd. (a)), and one count of forcible rape against a child aged 15 or 16 (count 3; § 261, subd. (a)(2)). The information alleged th at defendant committed the offenses beginning on or about Decem ber 30, 2007, and ending on or about December 11, 2009. The evidence at trial showed that the victims were either relatives of defendant or the daughters of defendant’s friend and so metime housemate. Some counts arose from episodes that began with defendant “play figh ting” or wrestling with the victims, then proceeding to unwanted touchings. In ot her episodes, the victims awoke to find defendant touching them lewdly . In one episode that began in this way, defendant went on to detain the victim forcib ly, overcoming her resistance, a nd to place his penis in her vagina against her will. A jury convicted defendant on all counts. The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate state prison term of 32 years to life, computed as follows: eight years (t he upper term) on count 4, plus subordinate terms of two years on counts 2, 5, 6, and 7, a full eight-year term on count 1, and a full eight-year term on count 3, all run consec utive to sentence on count 4. The court awarded defendant 1,2 20 days of presentenc e custody credit (1,061 actual days and 159 conduct days). The court imposed a $200 restitution fine and a suspended parole revocation restitution fine in the same amoun t. (§§ 1202.4, subd. (b), 1202.45.) The court retained jurisdiction as to victim restitu tion in amounts to be determined. The court then stated: “Any other mandatory fines are imposed. Any discretionary fines are stricken.” 2

2 This method of imposing fines does not co mport with our clear direction that trial courts must state all fines and their statut ory bases on the record at sentencing. ( People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200-1201 .) It is improper for a trial court to delegate the decision to the court clerk as to what fines and fees will appear on the abstract of judgment. It is also lik ely to create needless error, as here.3 The abstract of judgment shows a $210 court facility fee (Gov. Code, § 70373), which is mandatory (Gov. Code, § 70373, su bd. (a)(1)). However, the abstract does not show the following fines and f ees that are also mandatory: the state penalty assessment of $10 per criminal offense (§ 1464), the cour t operations fee of $40 per criminal offense (§ 1465.8), and the state court construction penalty of $5 for ever y $10 per criminal offense (Gov. Code, § 70372, subd. (a)(1)). We appointed counsel to represent defenda nt 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. ( Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of th e right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More th an 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Ha ving undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. We must remand the matter to the trial c ourt, however, with directions to prepare an amended abstract of judgment that refl ects all mandatory fines and fees as set out above (multiplying the base amounts by seven because defendant was convicted of seven felonies), and to forward a certified copy ther eof to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.4 DISPOSITION The matter is remanded to the trial court w ith directions to amend the abstract of judgment as described above. As modifi ed, defendant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.

HULL , Acting P. J.

We concur:

ROBIE , J.

BUTZ , J.