1 Filed 10/8/14 P. v. Cadwallader CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte)

----

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. VALERIE ANN CADWALLADER, Defendant and Appellant. C075146 (Super. Ct. Nos. CM036127, CM039318)

This appeal comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ). On May 7, 2013, in cas e No. CM036127, defendant Valerie Ann Cadwallader pleaded no contest to child endangerment (count 1; Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a)) 1 and driving under the influence (DUI) of alcoho l or drugs (count 2; Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)); she also admitted th e allegation as to count 2 th at her blood-alcohol content

1 Undesignated section refere nces are to the Penal Code.2 was 0.15 percent or greater (Veh. Code, § 23578). All other pending charges were dismissed. 2 Defendant was granted four years of probation, including 120 days in jail. On July 29, 2013 , in case No. CM039318, a co mplaint was filed charging defendant with child e ndangerment (count 1; § 273a, su bd. (a)), possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (count 2; § 29800, su bd. (a)(1)), and possession of ammunition by a convicted felon (count 3; § 30305, subd. (a)(1 )). The complaint alleged that defendant was out of custody on a pend ing felony when those offenses were committed. (§ 12022.1.) On the same date, a petition for viol ation of probation was filed in case No. CM036127, citing the child endangerment offense. On August 27, 2013 , in case No. CM039318, defenda nt pleaded guilty to count 1 and admitted the out-of-custody enhancement, with the unde rstanding that the remaining charges would be dismissed pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754. The trial court found defendant in violation of probation in case Nos. CM036127 and SCR87272. On October 15, 2013, the trial court deni ed defendant probation in both cases and sentenced her to an aggregate state prison term of seven years four months, computed as follows: in case No. CM039318, the court se ntenced defendant to four years on count 1 plus two years to be served consecutively for the out-of-custody enhancement; in case No. CM036127, the court sentenced defendant to one year four months (one-third the middle term, to run consecutively to the sent ence in the other case) on count 1 and a sixmonth concurrent sentence on count 2. The court awarded defendant 537 days of

2 At the same time, defendant pleaded no contest to a DUI charge and an allegation of driving with a blood-alcohol content of 0.15 percent or greater in pending case No. SCR87272, as to which the record does not contai n the charging document.3 presentence custody credits (269 actual days and 268 conduct days) in case No. CM039318 and no credits in case No. CM036127. The court orally imposed fines, fees, and assessments as follows : “As to the fees and fines, I’m going to reimpose the $1,775 fine imposed in SCR872 72 for Count I. In Count II of CM036127, the DUI, I’m imposing the fine of $1,853 that was previously imposed. “A $40 conviction -- I’m sorry, $40 court op eration assessment as to each count. That is $80 in CM036127, $40 in CM[0]39318, and a [ sic ] $40 in SCR87272. “A $30 conviction assessment for each count. In CM0 36127, $30. $30, SCR87272. $30 in CM039318. “Probation revocation fine for each felony in the amount of $280. “$280 and the probation -- I’m sorry, I’m going to impose the probation revocation restitution fine wh ich was suspended in CM0361 27. And $140 that was imposed in SCR87272 which was imposed. I’m imposing th e child prevention fine [ sic ] of $1,020 in CM036127. “Criminal justice fee of $25 for all three cases. Victim restitution is reserved to [A. M.] 10 percent per annum from the date of sentencing. “I’m ordering that you pay the presente nce investigation re port as previously ordered for CM37272 [ sic ]. “An alcohol education fe e in CM036127, Count II. “And $50 for SCR87272.” The abstract of judgment shows the following fines, fees, and assessments: A $280 restitution fine and a matching su spended parole revoca tion restitution fine (§§ 1202.4, subd. (b ), 1202.45) in case No. CM039318. The same fines in case No . CM036127, plus $280 now du e as probation had been revoked. (§ 1202.44.) An aggregate court operations a ssessment of $120. (§ 1465.8.)4 An aggregate conviction assessment of $90. (Gov. Code, § 70373.) 3 A child abuse prevention fund fine of $1,000 (§ 294, subd. (a)) and a $20 collection fee (§ 294, s ubd. (d)) in case No. CM036127. An alcohol education prevention fee (Veh. Code, § 23645) of $50 in case No. CM036127. A supplemental report fee of $736 (§ 1203.1b) in case No. CM036127. Victim restitution reserved to [I.C.] in an amount to be determined in case No. CM039318. An aggregate amount of $1,853 in case No. CM036127, consis ting of a fine of $460 (Veh. Code, § 23530), a co urt surcharge of $92 (§ 1 465.7), a state court facilities construction fund fee of $230 (Gov. Code, § 70372, subd. (a)), a state penalty assessment of $460 (§ 1464), a DNA identification fund fee of $46 (Gov. Code, § 76104.6), a DNA identification fund fee of $184 (Gov. Code, § 76104.7), a county pe nalty assessment of $322 (Gov. Code, § 76000), a DUI program a ssessment of $50 (§ 1463.16), a DMV fee of $5 (statute unspecified), and an “E MAT” fee of $4 (statute unspecified). According to the probation report, on July 26, 2013, at 3:30 a.m., a police officer was dispatched to defendant’s residence to assist a paramedic with an unresponsive female (defendant). Defendant ’s sister reported that she had found defendant passed out, lying on top of her infant daughter, after dr inking heavily, and had been unable to wake her without assistance. The paramedic needed five minutes to rouse defendant; she was obviously intoxicated and refused medical atten tion. It eventually transpired that there was a firearm and ammunition in defendant’s bedroom. Defendant’s sister said she came over to care for the infant two or three times a week because defendant was too intoxicated to do so. When defendant remained uncooper ative and volatile, the officer

3 The abstract explains that there is onl y one conviction assessment fee as to case No. CM036127 because count 2 was a mi sdemeanor sentenced concurrently.5 handcuffed and detained her. Approximately three hours afte r the initial call, defendant’s blood-alcohol content was 0.13 percent. Defendant was booked into county jail on a charge of child endangermen t. (§ 273a, subd. (a).) The officer subsequently learned that de fendant had been gran ted probation for a violation of the same statute after she was contacted while driving under the influence with her 14-year-old son in he r car. On that occasion, she drove into the side of a 7- Eleven store. Defendant was also granted probation fo r a DUI offense wherein she drove her car onto the guy wire to a power pole. Breath te sts showed a blood-alcohol level of 0.27 or 0.28 percent. 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, because we cannot resolve the discrepancies between the court’s sentenci ng statement and the abstract of judgment. This is partly because the court failed to fo llow this court’s clear directive to provide a “detailed recitation of all the fees, fines and penalties on the record,” including their amounts and statutory bases. ( People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200.) Since the fines, fees, and penalties here derive from three different cases, it is imperative on remand that the court spell them out in fu ll. Moreover, the abstra ct of judgment must reflect the amounts imposed as to all three case s. Finally, we note that the sentencing statement mentions victim restitution as to one victim, while the abstract mentions it as to6 another; on remand it must be clarified whether there is one victim or two and in which case or cases any victims entitle d to restitution are involved. DISPOSITION Defendant’s convictions and sentences are affirmed. The matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in light of this opinion. The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment an d to send a certified copy thereof to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

RAYE , P. J.

We concur:

NICHOLSON , J.

HOCH , J.