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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 Patrol 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 grams 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 personal identifying information of another with intent to 
2 

defraud, driving when addicted to any drug, and possession of controlled substance 

paraphernalia. The complaint alleged sentencing enhancements for having sustained 

prior drug convictions. The complaint also alleged defendant committed counts 1 

through 4 while released on bail. 

 Defendant pled no contest to transporting methamphetamine, receiving stolen 

property, and driving while addicted to any drug. She also admitted she had a prior drug 

conviction. 

 In accordance with the stipulation, the trial court sentenced defendant to seven 

years eight months in custody. The trial court ordered defendant to pay a $300 restitution 

fund fine, a $50 lab fee, a $150 drug program fee, a $120 court operations fee, and a $90 

criminal conviction assessment. 

 We appointed counsel to represent defendant 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 record and determine whether there are any 

arguable issues on appeal. 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. We have 

undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, and we find no 

arguable error that would result in a disposition 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 per 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 judgment, but only purports to digest and 

summarize it.” (People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.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 ordered to correct the abstract of judgment 

to reflect the imposition of the $120 court operations fee, $40 per conviction and $90 

criminal conviction assessment, $30 per conviction, and to forward a certified copy of the 

abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 

 ROBIE , J. 

We concur: 

 RAYE , P. J. 

 DUARTE , J.