1 Filed 9/11/13 P. v. Saechao CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. CHIA L. SAECHAO, Defendant and Appellant. C073516
(Super. Ct. No. 12F04670)

Appointed counsel for defend ant Chia L. Saechao asked this court to review the
record to determine whet her there are any arguable issues on appeal. ( People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ).) Based on our review of th e record, we will modify the judgment to include a mandatory fee and applicable penalty assessments and surcharges. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment as modified.2 I
Because this matter was resolved by plea, the facts are taken from the stated
factual basis. Defendant possessed .29 grams of meth amphetamine, a useable amount. In exchange for a stipulated sentence of 32 m onths in prison, he pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine (Health & Sa f. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and admitted a prior strike conviction.
Defendant asked the trial court to dismi ss his prior strike conviction pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497. After considering the request
and the factors set forth in People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, the trial court denied the request. The trial court senten ced defendant to the negotiated term of 32 months in prison (16 months doubled based on the prior st rike conviction), awarded him 520 days of presentence cred it, and imposed $240 restit ution fund fines (Pen. Code, §§ 1202.4 & 1202.45), a $40 cour t security fee and a $30 cour t facility fee. All other non-mandatory fees and fines were waived. The abstract of judgment and minute or der, however, reflect the imposition of an additional mandatory $50 crimin al laboratory analysis fee un der Health and Safety Code section 11372.5, subdivision (a).
Defendant did not obtain a cer tificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5.)
II Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record a nd 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 da te of filing the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed and we r eceived no communication from defendant. Based on our review of the record, we have identified an error in the pronouncement of judgment. The minute order and abstract of judgment reflect the3 imposition of a mandatory criminal laborator y fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5, subd. (a)), but that fee was not included in the oral pronouncement of judgment. The abstract of judgment must reflec t the oral pronouncement of judgment. ( People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185–186.) But where the fee is mandatory, as it is here, the omission in the oral pronounce ment may be corrected at any time because the failure to impose a mandatory fine or fe e constitutes an unlawful sentence. (See People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 853 .) We will modify the judgment to include the mandatory fee. Our review also discloses that the ju dgment must be modified to include applicable penalty assessments and surcharges . We will modify the judgment to include the applicable penalty assessments under Pe nal Code section 1464 and Government Code section 76000, a court facilities surcharge under Government Code section 70372, and the state surcharge under Pena l Code section 1465.7. ( People v. Taylor (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 454, 456.) Having undertaken an examination of th e entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a dispositi on more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION The judgment is modified to provide fo r a $50 criminal laboratory fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5, subd. (a)), a state penalty assessment of $50 (Pen. Code, § 1464), a county penalty assessment of $35 (Gov. Co de, § 76000), a $25 court facilities surcharge (Gov. Code, § 70372), and a 20 percent state surcharge of $10 (Pen . Code, § 1465.7). The minute order and abstract of judgment already reflect the imposition of the fee, but
the trial court is directed to amend the minut e order and abstract of judgment to reflect imposition of the penalty assessments and surc harges, and to forward a certified copy of4 the amended abstract of judgment to the De partment of Corrections and Rehabilitation. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.

MAURO , J.

We concur:

HULL , Acting P. J.

MURRAY , J.