DISCUSSION

Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel advised defendant of his 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. Our review of the record reveals fines and fees included on the abstract of judgment that the trial court never imposed. The only mention of fines and fees at the resentencing hearing was the trial court granting defendant’s request to “waive all waivable fines and fees.” Thereafter, the court did not impose any fines or fees. Nevertheless, the abstract of judgment lists a $200 restitution fine, a $200 parole

3 revocation restitution fine, and a $20 crime prevention program fee. The abstract of judgment also lists apparent restitution payments related to a different case, though the court did not order any restitution at the resentencing hearing. These amounts appear to have been copied over from the prior abstract of judgment, except the parole revocation restitution fine, which was enacted the day before the original abstract of judgment was prepared and not imposed at the time. (See Stats. 1995, ch. 313, § 6, p. 1751.) “Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.” (People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385.) “ ‘If the clerk includes fines in the court’s minutes or the abstract of judgment that were not part of the oral pronouncement of sentence, those fines must be stricken from the minutes and the abstract of judgment.’ ” (People v. Clark (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 248, 261.) “Courts may correct clerical errors at any time, and appellate courts (including this one) that have properly assumed jurisdiction of cases have ordered correction of abstracts of judgment that did not accurately reflect the oral judgments of sentencing courts.” (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185.) Because the trial court waived all waivable fines and fees, did not impose any new fines and fees, and did not order restitution in this case, we order the court to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment striking these fines, fees, and restitution orders.

4

DISPOSITION

The trial court is directed to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment that correctly reflects that it did not impose any fines or fees and did not order restitution in this case and to forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The judgment is otherwise affirmed.

/s/ ROBIE, Acting P. J.

We concur:

/s/

MAURO, J.

/s/

KRAUSE, J.

5