1 Filed 10/24/13 P. v. Braggs CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin)

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. JAMAL DUPREE BRAGGS, Defendant and Appellant. C073422 (Super. Ct. Nos SF120037A & SF122475A)

This is an appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ). In April 2012 defendant forged a check. He was charged in San Joaquin County case
No. SF120037A with forgery in violation of Penal C ode section 470, subdivision (d) 1 and receipt of stolen property in violation of section 496, su bdivision (a). It was further alleged that defendant served three prior pr ison terms, as describe d in section 667.5, subdivision (b) and was previo usly convicted of a serious felony (§§ 1170.12, subd. (b), 667, subd. (d)).

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.2 Defendant pled guilty to fo rgery. In exchange for hi s plea, imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant wa s ordered to serve five years of formal probation and pay various fines and fees. The remaining char ges were dismissed and the enhancements stricken, in light of the plea agreement. In August 2012 the People filed a petition alle ging defendant violated his probation by failing to report to the probation department.
In December 2012 defendant was driving a vehicle in a dangerous and reckless manner. Law enforcement pursued defendant a nd directed him to stop. When defendant stopped the vehicle, he pushe d the passengers out, including a child who was not yet one year old. Defendant was subsequently charged in San Joaquin County case
No. SF122475A with felony child endangerment (§ 27 3a, subd. (a)), reckless driving (Veh. Code, § 23103), resisting a peace officer (§ 148), and drivi ng without a license (Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a)). Defendant pled guilty to child endangerment. He also admitted violating his probation in case No. SF120037A . In exchange for his plea and admission, the People agreed to a four-year prison term on the co nviction for child endangerment and that he would serve his 16-month pris on sentence in case No. SF 120037A concurrently. The remaining charges in case No. SF122475A were dismissed in th e interest of justice and an unrelated matter, San Joaquin County cas e No. SM280914A, also was dismissed.
Defendant was sentenced in acco rdance with his plea and th e court ordered him to pay
various fines and fees. Defendant appeals. The trial court denied defendant’s request for a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5.) 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.3d3 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of th e right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the filing of the opening brief. Defendant filed a supplemental brief in which he raises several claims that he was
dissatisfied with trial counsel. He claims tr ial counsel refused to give the trial court a letter wherein defendant asked for help with his drug addiction, along with “paperwork [he] had from the parole department.” He also claims counsel never gave him a satisfactory explanation on why he was char ged with felony child endangerment when the child he pushed out of the car was not actually injured. To the ex tent this is a claim
for ineffective assistance of co unsel, we reject the claim. Based on our review of the record, ineffective assistance of counsel is not established. ( Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687-688, 691-692 [80 L.Ed.2d 674, 6 93-694, 696-697]; People v.
Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171, 216-218.) Defendant also claims he was “pressured” into a plea agreement. Defendant’s claim is not properly before this court. De fendant’s request for a ce rtificate of probable cause was denied. Therefore, he cannot cha llenge the validity of his plea agreement on this appeal. (§1237.5.) Having undertaken an examination of th e entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a dispos ition more favorable to defenda nt. However, we conclude the judgment must be modified to incl ude imposition of an om itted mandatory fee. The trial court failed to orally impose th e mandatory criminal facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373) in the amount of $30 in case No. SF120037A. This fee is likewise omitted from the abstract of judgment. We sh all modify the judgment to include the fee
and direct the trial court to amend the ab stract of judgment accordingly. (See People v.
Talibdeen (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1151, 1157.)
DISPOSITION The judgment in San Joaquin County case No. SF120037A is modified to impose a $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code , § 70373). As modified, the judgment is4 affirmed. The trial court is directed to pr epare an amended abstract of judgment and forward certified copies to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The judgment in San Joaquin Coun ty case No. SF122475A is affirmed.

BLEASE , Acting P. J.

We concur:

BUTZ , J.

MURRAY , J.