1 Filed 6/4/15 P. v. Bennett CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yolo)

----

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. SHARYL LYNN BENNETT, Defendant and Appellant. C077647
(Super. Ct. No. CRF143399)

On July 17, 2014, a California Highway Pa trol officer conducted a traffic stop of defendant Sharyl Lynn Bennett. As part of the stop, her car was searched. Officers found defendant in possession of 22.8 gram s of methamphetamine. The car defendant was driving was stolen. Defendant was found to be a methamphetamine addict while she was driving. She also had a prior drug conviction. A complaint charged defendant with transporting methamphetamine, unlawful taking or driving of a vehicle, receipt of a stolen vehicle, receiving stolen property, misdemeanor possession of person al identifying information of another with intent to2 defraud, driving when addict ed to any drug, and possessi on of controlled substance paraphernalia. The complaint alleged sent encing enhancements for having sustained prior drug convictions. Th e complaint also alleged de fendant committed counts 1 through 4 while released on bail. Defendant pled no contest to trans porting methamphetamine, receiving stolen property, and driving wh ile addicted to any drug. She al so admitted she had a prior drug
conviction.
In accordance with the sti pulation, the trial court sentenced defendant to seven years eight months in custody. The trial c ourt ordered defe ndant to pay a $300 restitution fund fine, a $50 lab fee, a $15 0 drug program fee, a $120 cour t operations fee, and a $90
criminal conviction assessment. We appointed counsel to represent defenda nt on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and, pursuant to People v. Wende (1969) 25 Cal.3d 436, requesting the court to review the re cord and determine wh ether there are any arguable issues on appeal. Defendant was ad vised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the da te of filing of the opening brief. We have
undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende , and we find no arguable error that would result in a disp osition more favorable to defendant. We have, however, noticed an error which requires correction. The trial court correctly imposed a $120 court operations fee, $40 per conviction and a $90 criminal conviction assessment, $30 pe r conviction. The abstract of judgment reflects the imposition of only a $40 court operations fee and a $30 criminal conviction assessment. “Rendition of the judgment is normally an oral pronouncement, and the abstract of judgment cannot add to, or modify, the ju dgment, but only purports to digest and summarize it.” ( People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.A pp.4th 380, 389.) We will order the clerk to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect the oral pronouncement of judgment.3 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. The clerk is or dered to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect the imposition of the $120 court op erations fee, $40 per conviction and $90 criminal conviction assessment, $30 per conviction, and to forw ard a certified copy of the abstract of judgment to the Departme nt of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

ROBIE , J.

We concur:

RAYE , P. J.

DUARTE , J.