1 Filed 2/27/13 P. v. Clark CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.
CHARVONE LAMO NT CLARK, Defendant and Appellant. C072130 (Super. Ct. No. 12F00337)

Appointed counsel for defe ndant Charvone Lamont Clar k has asked this court to
review the record to determ ine whether there exist any arguable issues on appeal. ( People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ).) Although we find no errors which favor defendant, we must remand for am endment of the abst ract of judgment.
BACKGROUND On January 10, 2012, defe ndant entered his victims’ home and, acting in concert with two or more people, pointed a fir earm at multiple victims and stole a safe.2 The People filed an amended informa tion accusing defendant of kidnapping to commit robbery (counts 1 & 2; Pen. Code, 1 § 209, subd. (b)(1)), first degree robbery (counts 3, 4, & 6; § 211), and assault with a fi rearm (count 5; § 245, subd. (a)(2)). As to count 4, it was alleged that defendant voluntar ily acted in concert with two or more other persons. (§ 213, subd. (a).) As to counts 1 through 4, it was alleged that defendant personally used a firearm. (§ 12022.53, subd. (b).) It was further alleged that defendant had three prior strike convictions. (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12.) Defendant pled no contest to count 4 and admitted the firearm enhancement on that count and one prior strike , in return for a stipulated sentence of 28 years in state prison and the dismissal of the rema ining counts and allegations with a Harvey 2 waiver
for restitution. Defendant wa ived referral to probation.
The trial court sentenced defendant to th e stipulated 28-year term, consisting of the upper term of nine years on count 4, doubl ed for the strike, plus 10 years consecutive
for the firearm use enhancement. The c ourt awarded 216 days of credit for actual custody, plus 31 days of conduct credit (§ 29 33.1), for a total of 247 days of presentence custody credit. The court imposed a $6,720 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) and
reserved determination of vi ctim restitution. The cour t also imposed a $10 crime prevention fine (§ 1202.5), a $340.01 main jail booking fe e (Gov. Code, § 29550.1), a $62.09 jail classification fee (Gov. Code, § 29550.2), a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8), and a $30 court fac ility fee (Gov. Code, § 70373).
DISCUSSION Counsel filed an opening brie f that sets forth the facts of the case and asks us to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. ( Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d

1 Further undesignated statutory re ferences are to the Penal Code.

2 People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.3 436.) Counsel advised defendant 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. We have undertaken an examination of the entire record and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. We do, however, find two errors that require the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment. First, the trial court failed to impose a suspended parole revocation restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.45. Such a fine, in the same amount as the restitution fine imposed pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivisi on (b), is mandatory in every case where a prison term includes a period of parole. ( People v. Tillman (2000) 22 Cal.4th 300, 302; People v. Rodriguez (2000) 80 Cal.App. 4th 372, 375-378; People v. Terrell (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1255-1256.) Where a fi ne under section 1202.4, subdivision (b) has been imposed, the failure to impose a fine under section 1202.45 results in an unauthorized sentence, which we may corr ect in the first instance on appeal. ( People v. Rodriguez, supra , 80 Cal.App.4th at p. 376.) Second, the trial court’s oral pronounc ement of sentence failed to specify the statutory basis for the main jail booking fee and the jail classification fee, as does the abstract of judgment, and the abstract also fa ils to specify the statutory basis for the crime prevention fee, the court operatio ns assessment, and the court fa cility fee. As we held in People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, the trial court is required to include the statutory bases of all fees, fines, and pe nalties imposed upon defendant in its oral imposition of sentence and the corre sponding abstract of judgment.
DISPOSITION The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment in4 accordance with this op inion, and to provide a certified co py of the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The judgment is affirmed as modified.

DUARTE , J.

We concur:

RAYE , P. J.

BUTZ , J.