1 Filed 10/23/13 P. v. Jarman CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Glenn)

----

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. WILLIAM JARMAN, Defendant and Appellant. C072131, C073038 (Super. Ct. No. 11SCR07151)

Appointed counsel for defe ndant William Jarman asked th is court to review the
records in this consolidated appeal to determine whether th ere are any arguable issues on appeal. ( People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ).) We note the administrative fee of $35 must be reduced to the statutory maximum of $30. We find no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. As modified, the judgment is affirmed. We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the two cases in this appeal. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.) On May 5, 2011, a Glenn County Sheriff’s deputy saw defendant driving a black pickup truck. The deputy recognized defenda nt and was aware his driver’s license had been suspended. The deputy confirmed defe ndant’s license status and followed the truck2 as it proceeded for several blocks and parked in an alley. The depu ty contacted defendant
who consented to a search of the truck. Th e search yielded two plastic pill bottles. One bottle contained 0.07 gram s of methamphetamine, and the other contained five hydrocodone acetaminophen tablets. Defe ndant did not have a prescription for
the tablets. Defendant was charged with transporta tion of hydrocodone (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)), transportation of meth amphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)), and driving with a suspended license (Veh. Code, § 14601.2). After waiving his right to a jury trial, defendant submitted the foregoing stipulated facts to the trial court, which found him guilty of two charged offenses: tr ansportation of hydrocodone and transportation of methamphetamine. Th e stipulation of facts did not contain evidence of driving with a su spended license, and the tria l court found defendant not guilty of that offense. Defendant was granted Prop osition 36 probation for thre e years. He was ordered to pay a $400 fine (Pen. Code, 1 § 1202.4, subd. (a)(2)) plus penalty assessments, a $240 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $240 restitution fine suspended unless probation is revoked (§ 1202.44), a $50 laboratory analysis fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5, subd. (a)), a $100 drug program fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.7), an $80 court security fee (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), a $60 court facilitie s assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), a $25 own recognizance release processing fee (§ 14 63.07), and supervisi on and drug testing fees. Although the trial cour t did not orally pronounce an administrative fee, the probation commitment order directs defendant to pay a $35 administrative fee. (§ 1205, subd. (d)(1).) Defendant timel y appealed from this order, and the appeal was assigned
case No. C072131.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.3 On July 19, 2012, defe ndant tested presumptive positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine. He admitted an allegation that he had violated his probation, and the trial court reinstated his probation. On July 31, 2012, defendant failed to submit to urinalysis as directed. He admitted an allegation that he violated hi s probation, and the trial court reinstated his probation. On September 7, 2012, the probation de partment alleged defendant violated his probation by failing to submit to urinalyses on three separate occasions, failing to attend treatment appointments, and failing to report to the probation depa rtment. He admitted the allegations. Imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was granted formal probation for three years, ordered to jail fo r time already served, and ordered to attend drug court. Defendant’s fines and fees we re modified in the fo llowing respects: the restitution fine and probation revocation restitution fine were increased from $240 to $480; and the laboratory analysis fee wa s increased from $50 to $100 to reflect conviction of two separate o ffenses (§ 11372.5, subd. (a )). Defendant timely appealed from this order, and the appeal wa s assigned case No. C073038. We appointed counsel to represent defe ndant on appeal. On our own motion, we ordered the appeals consolidated. Appointed counsel requested the trial court to reduce both restitution fines from $480 to $240 and to reduce the $35 administ rative fee to $30. The trial court reduced both restitution fines to $240, but its amended or der did not reduce the administrative fee to $30. Appointed counsel file d an opening brief that sets fo rth 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 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.4 Our review of the record discloses the $35 administrative fee must be reduced to the statutory maximum of $30. Having undertaken an examination of th e entire record, we find no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION The judgment is modified to impose a $30 administrative fee. (Pen. Code, § 1205, subd. (e).) As modified, the judg ment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare an amended order reflecting this modification.

HOCH , J.

We concur:

BLEASE , Acting P. J.

DUARTE , J.