DISCUSSION

Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and requests this court review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of his 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, we note three errors that warrant correction. First, the total stipulated sentence, as indicated by both the court and the parties, was five years four months, which included a 16-month sentence for the carrying a dirk or dagger count. At the sentencing hearing, the court appears to have misspoken when imposing the sentence for this count, and said it would impose “one- third the mid term, which would have been eight months, doubled because of the strike is imposed, 32 months.” Given the multiple references to the five-year, four-month sentence, both orally and in writing by the court and the parties, it is clear that the total sentence the court imposed was five years four months, which included a 16-month sentence for the carrying a dirk or dagger count, and the court simply made a misstatement in reaching the sentence. We will correct the record accordingly. 1 (See People v. Jack (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 913, 915-916.) Second, the trial court imposed only one $40 court operations assessment and one $30 criminal conviction assessment, both of which must be imposed for each of defendant’s convictions. (Pen. Code, § 1465.8, subd. (a)(1); Gov. Code, § 70373, subd. (a)(1).) Because defendant pled no contest to two offenses, the court should have imposed an $80 operations assessment and a $60 criminal conviction assessment. We

1 The minute order and abstract of judgment reflect the correct sentence with its constituent parts, and the sentence does not need to be corrected on those documents.

3 will modify the judgment to impose the assessments. (People v. Woods (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 269, 272-273.) Third, defendant admitted the allegation as to the burglary count that there was a person in the residence, who was not an accomplice, when he committed the offense. This made the offense a violent felony, which was a condition of the plea agreement. (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (c)(21).) Thus, in section 1 of the abstract of judgment, the box for “violent felony” under the burglary conviction should be checked. We will order the abstract of judgment corrected. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find no other errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is modified to include an $80 court operations assessment under Penal Code section 1465.8 and a $60 criminal conviction assessment under Government Code section 70373. As modified, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to correct the abstract of judgment to denote defendant’s burglary conviction as a violent felony, amend the abstract to reflect the above assessments, and to forward a certified copy of the amended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

/s/ Robie, J.

We concur:

/s/ Raye, P. J.

/s/ Hull, J.

4