1 

Filed 4/13/15 P. v. Galvan 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 

(Sacramento) 

---- 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

CHAD A. GALVAN, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

C076388 

(Super. Ct. Nos. 13F05132, 

14F00310, 14F00535) 

 This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). 

Having reviewed the record as required by Wende, we will modify the judgment to 

include the mandatory criminal laboratory analysis fee required by Health and Safety 

Code section 11372.5, and mandatory penalty assessments required by Penal Code 

section 1464 and Government Code section 76000. Finding no arguable error that would 

result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment as 

modified. 
2 

 We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of 

the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.) 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

The Charges and Allegations 

 Case No. 13F05132 

 Defendant was charged by criminal complaint in case No. 13F05132 with felony 

possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code § 11377, subd. (a) -- count 

one), misdemeanor possession of narcotics paraphernalia (former Health & Saf. Code, 

§ 11364.1, subd. (a) -- count two), and misdemeanor obstructing a peace officer (Pen. 

Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1) -- count three). The complaint alleged defendant sustained 

three prior serious or violent felony convictions within the meaning of Penal Code 

sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (i), and 1170.12. 

 Case No. 14F00310 

 Defendant was charged by amended criminal complaint in case No. 14F00310 

with felony petty theft with a prior theft related conviction. (Pen. Code, § 666.) The 

amended complaint alleged defendant was on bail at the time of commission of the 

offense (former Pen. Code, § 12022.1), and that he sustained three prior serious or violent 

felony convictions. (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (e)(2)(C), and 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(C).) 

 Case No. 14F00535 

 Defendant was charged by criminal complaint in case No. 14F00535 with two 

counts of felony failure to register as a sex offender (Pen. Code, § 290.018, subd. (b) -- 

counts one and two). The complaint alleged defendant sustained two prior serious or 

violent felony convictions. (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b) through (i), and 1170.12.) 

The Plea and Sentencing 

 Defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to possession of a controlled 

substance (case No. 13F05132), petty theft with a prior theft related conviction (case 

No. 14F00310), and failure to register as a sex offender (case No. 14F00535), all 
3 

felonies, and admitted one strike allegation and an on-bail enhancement in exchange for a 

stipulated sentence of seven years four months in state prison and dismissal with a 

Harvey1 waiver of the balance of charges against him. Defendant waived preparation of 

a probation report. The factual basis to substantiate the pleas is as follows: 

 Case No. 13F05132: On August 11, 2013, defendant was found to be in 

possession of 0.74 grams of methamphetamine. 

 Case No. 14F00310: On January 10, 2014, while out of custody on bail, defendant 

entered a store and stole approximately $100 worth of property. 

 Case No. 14F00535: Between January 3, 2014, and January 13, 2014, having 

previously been convicted as a sex offender and therefore being required to register as 

such, defendant failed to register within five working days of his birthday despite having 

been properly notified of such requirement. Defendant’s last registration was in 2012. 

 As to all three cases, the admitted strike was a February 5, 1999, conviction for 

robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211.) 

 The trial court denied probation and sentenced defendant to seven years four 

months in state prison as stipulated. The court imposed mandatory restitution fines in 

each of the three cases pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4, and imposed but stayed 

mandatory parole revocation fines pursuant to section 1202.45. The court awarded 

defendant 209 days of presentence custody credit (105 actual days, plus 104 conduct 

credits). 

 The abstract of judgment includes a $120 court operations assessment (Pen. Code, 

§ 1465.8), and a $90 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). 

 

1 People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754. 
4 

WENDE REVIEW

 Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests that 

we 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 have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant. 

 Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error 

that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. 

 However, we do note that the trial court erred in failing to orally impose a court 

operations assessment, a criminal conviction assessment, and a criminal laboratory 

analysis fee, as well as penalties pursuant to Penal Code section 1464 and Government 

Code section 76000, all of which are statutorily mandated. (Pen. Code, § 1465.8, 

subd. (a)(1); Gov. Code, § 70373, subd. (a)(1); Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5, subd. (a); 

see also People v. Alford (2007) 42 Cal.4th 749, 754 [court operations assessment is 

mandatory for all convictions]; People v. Robinson (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 401, 405 

[court operations and criminal conviction assessments “are a required part of defendant’s 

sentence and may be corrected on appeal”]; People v. Turner (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 

1409, 1414-1415 [criminal laboratory analysis fee is mandatory]; People v. Stewart

(2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 907, 910-913 [penalty assessments pursuant to Government 

Code section 76000, subdivision (a), and Penal Code section 1464, subdivision (a), are 

mandatory].) Failure to impose mandatory fees, fines, and penalties constitutes an 

unauthorized sentence, which may be corrected by an appellate court even in the absence 

of an objection or argument below. (Turner, at pp. 1413-1415.) 

 We need not exercise our inherent authority to modify the judgment as to the court 

operations and criminal conviction assessments because the abstract correctly includes a 

$120 court operations assessment and a $90 criminal conviction assessment. However, 

we shall modify the judgment in case No. 13F05132 to impose a $50 criminal lab 
5 

analysis fee pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11372.5, subdivision (a), in light 

of defendant’s conviction for violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, as well 

as a $50 penalty assessment pursuant to Penal Code section 1464, subdivision (a), and a 

$35 penalty assessment pursuant to Government Code section 76000, subdivision (a). 

DISPOSITION

 The judgment is modified to impose in case No. 13F05132 a $50 criminal 

laboratory analysis fee pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11372.5, 

subdivision (a), a $50 penalty assessment pursuant to Penal Code section 1464, 

subdivision (a), and a $35 penalty assessment pursuant to Government Code section 

76000, subdivision (a). As modified, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed 

to prepare an amended abstract of judgment and to provide a certified copy of the 

amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 

 MURRAY , J. 

We concur: 

 NICHOLSON , Acting P. J. 

 ROBIE , J.