1

Filed 9/25/20 P. v. Gonzalez CA4 /2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. JOSHUA GONZALEZ, Defendant and Appellant. E074343 (Super.Ct.No. FSB19001628)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Ronald M. Christianson, Judge. Affirmed with directions. David Zarmi, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION Defendant and appellant Joshua Gonzalez was charged by information with child abuse under circumstances likely to cause great bodily injury (GBI) or death. (Pen.2

Code, 1 § 273a, subd. (a) , count 1). The information also alleged that he willfully caused or permitted a child to suffer , or inflic ted unjustifiable physical pain or injury that

result ed in death . (§ 12022.95.) The People subsequently moved to add an enhancement under section 12022.7, subdivision (a), alleging that defendant personally inflict ed GBI on a person other than an accomplice in the commission of a felon y

. Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to count 1 and admitted the enhancement under section 12022.7, subdivision (a)

. In accordance with the terms of the agreement, t he court

sentenced him to nine years in state prison , with credit for t ime serve d of 219 days (191 actual and 28 conduct). It also imposed a $40 court operations fee, a $30 court

construction fee , 2 and a $300 restitution fine . The court dismissed the remaining counts and allegations. Defendant filed a notice of appeal, ba sed on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea. We affirm.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Defendant was charged with, and pled guilty to, child abuse under circumstances likely to cause GBI (§ 273a, subd. (a) , count 1 ), and admitted that, in the commission of that offense, he personally inflicted GBI on the victim.

1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise noted.

2 The court combined the court operations and construction fees and imposed “a $70 court construction and operation fee.”3 DISCUSSION Defendant appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d

43 6 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 , setting forth a statement of the case

and a few potential arguable issues: ( 1) whether the sentencing court erred in imposing

fines and fees with out an ability to pay hearing ( People v. Due ñ as (2019) 30 Cal. App.5th 1157) ; ( 2) whether the court properly calculated and enumerated the fines and fees under

Penal Code section 1465.8 and Government Code section 70373; and ( 3 ) whether defendant’s credits were properly cal culated. Counsel has also requested this cou rt to

undertake a review of the entire record. We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which

he has not done. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues. Although not raised by the parties, we note a few apparent clerical errors. Generally, a clerical error is one inadvertently made. ( People v. Schultz (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 804, 808.) Clerical error can be made b y a clerk, by counsel, or by the court itself. ( Ibid . [judge misspoke].) A court “has the inherent power to correct clerical errors in its records so as to make these records reflect the true facts. [Citations.]” ( In re

Candelario (1970) 3 Cal.3d 702, 705.) In this case, the People added the enhancement under section 12022.7, subdivision (a) , to count 1. Defendant pled guilty to count 1 and admitted the section 12022.7, subdivision (a) enhancement as to that count. The court sen tenced him to the upper term4

of six years on count 1 and a consecutive three years on the enhancement, for a total term of nine years in state prison. However, the minute order from the plea hearing erroneously states that the People added the section 120 22.7, subdivision (a) “as Count 002.” It also reflects that defendant pled guilty to count 1 and admitted the enhancement

“as to Count 002.” Similarly, the sentencing minute order and the abstract of judgment erroneously state that the court sentenced de fendant to state prison for three years on the

enhancement on count 2. In the interest of accuracy, these clerical errors should be

corrected to reflect the true facts.

DISPOSITION The superior court clerk is directed to correct the October 10, 2019 minu te order , the November 12, 2019 sentencing minute order , and abstract of judgment to reflect that the People added the section 12022.7, subdivision (a) enhancement to count 1, defendant

admitted the enhancement as to count 1 , and the court sentenced him on that

enhancement as to count 1. The superior court clerk is further directed to forward a copy

of the amended minute order s and the abstract of judgment to the Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed

. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

FIELDS J. We concur:

McKINSTER Acting P. J. RAPHAEL J.