People v. Thomas CA3

BACKGROUND

We dispense with a summary of the facts of defendant’s crimes as they are unnecessary to resolve this appeal. Sentencing defendant in case No. CRF 13-2844, the trial court imposed a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8) and a $30 court facilities fee (Gov. Code,

2 § 70373). The combined abstract of judgment for case Nos. CRF 13-2844 and CRF 07- 4340 shows a $220 court operations assessment and a $30 court construction fee.

DISCUSSION

I Defendant contends the $220 court operations assessment in the abstract is either an error or a combination of the $40 fee imposed in case No. CRF 13-2844 and the court operations assessment imposed in 2008 in case No. CRF 07-4340. He further notes that there is no reference to whether any 2008 fines remained unpaid in the abstract or anywhere else in the record. He asks us to order a correction to the abstract to only the single $40 court operations assessment imposed case No. CRF 13-2844. The Attorney General agrees, claiming the $220 total “is not only necessarily mathematically incorrect, but it further does not reflect the actual oral rendition of judgment made by the sentencing court, which generally prevails over any…