People v. Zurek CA3

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 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. Based on our review of the record, it appears the trial court failed to pronounce two mandatory fines. Generally, only the oral pronouncement constitutes the judgment, and any divergence in the minutes or abstract of judgment is presumed to be clerical

3 error. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185; People v. Scott (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1324.) However, when a trial court fails to impose a statutorily mandated fine or fee, the sentence is unauthorized, and the appellate court may correct the error, even if the People failed to bring it to the trial court’s attention. (People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 852-853; People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331,…