DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we observe that the court misspoke when identifying the court conviction assessment fee as $40, not the $30 it was required to impose. (Gov. Code, § 70373, subd. (a)(1) [requiring a $30 assessment be imposed on every count of conviction for a felony or misdemeanor offense].) We will modify the judgment to correct this error. Further, we observe several other errors requiring trial court correction. Neither the trial court, nor the probation report identified the statutory basis for the $4 EMAT. We believe the statutory basis for that fee is Government Code section 76000.10, subdivision (c). We will direct the court to confirm this is the statutory basis for imposing that amount and to add the statutory basis to the abstract of judgment and sentencing order.

3 The probation report’s financial chart of fines and fees also lists this $30 court conviction assessment fee as being imposed pursuant to Government Code section 70373.

3 The abstract of judgment inaccurately lists the statutory basis for the $50 penalty assessment as Penal Code section 1463.16, not section 23645 as incorporated by reference by the court at sentencing. Finally, all parties were incorrect in identifying the statutory basis for defendant’s $460 base fine as section 23530 and not section 23550.5. On June 26, 2020, defendant’s counsel submitted a Penal Code section 1237.2 request in the trial court requesting the court correct this error. We will direct the trial court to correct the statutory basis for the penalty assessment and base fine on the abstract of judgment. Our review has disclosed no other errors in defendant’s favor.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is modified to make clear that the court conviction assessment fee imposed by the court was for $30, not the $40 orally stated by the court at sentencing. (Gov. Code, § 70373.) The trial court is directed to correct the other errors identified in this opinion, including consideration of defendant’s June 26, 2020, letter requesting correction of the code section under which he was assessed a $460 base fine. The court shall then modify the sentencing order and abstract of judgment and forward the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The judgment is affirmed as modified.

/s/

HOCH, J.

We concur:

/s/ ROBIE, Acting P. J.

/s/

MURRAY, J.

4