1

Filed 7/13/16 P. v. Solis

- Martinez CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

ERIC SOLIS

- MARTINEZ,

Defendant and Appellant. C080624

(Super. Ct. No. 15F02321)

This is an appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. On April 14, 2015, defendant struck up a conversation with a female at a bus stop then exposed himself to her. The female victim asked defendant to “put himself away,” t hen called the
police. Defendant pleaded guilty to indecent e xposure (Pen. Code, § 314) and admitted being previously convicted of a strike offense (Pen. Code, §§ 1170.12, 667, subds. (b)

- (i)). In exchange for his plea, the People agreed to a stipulated term of four years in state prison. The trial court sentenced defendant in accordance with his plea agreement,2

ordered him to pay various fines and fees, and awarded him 372 days of custody credit. Defendant appeals. The trial court denied his request for a certificate of probable cause. We appointed counsel to r epresent defendant 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. ( People v. Wende, supra

, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defen dant 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. We note an error at sentencing. A $40 court oper ations assessment (Pen. Code,
§ 1465.8) and a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373) appear on the abstract of judgment. Those fees do not appear in the court’s oral rendition of judgment

. The trial court should have orally imposed the a ssessments before the clerk added them to the abstract of judgment, but the trial court had no discretion on imposing the two fees. Both the court operations assessment and the criminal conviction assessment are mandatory. Generally, an oral pronouncemen t of judgment controls ( People v. Mesa
(1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471), but where assessments are mandatory, “their omission may be corrected for the first time on appeal” ( People v. Castellanos (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th
1524, 1530). Thus, there is no need for de fendant to be given an opportunity to address their imposition. The trial court’s failure to impose these assessments is sentencing error
which we correct on appeal. We will order the judgment modified to provide for these

two assessments. Since the abs tract of judgment already reflects their imposition, we need not order the trial court to prepare an amended abstract.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to de fendant.3 DISPOSITION The judgment is modified to provide for a $40 court operations assessment and a
$30 criminal conviction assessment. An amendment of the abstract is not required since these fees already appear on the abstract. As modified, the judgm ent is affirmed.

/s/ Blease , Acting P. J.

We concur:

/s/ Murray , J.

/s/ Duarte , J.