P.

BACKGROUND

Defendant entered an auto parts store with the intent to commit theft and possessed methamphetamine. She entered a negotiated plea of no contest to charges of

1 second degree burglary and possession of methamphetamine, and admitted a prior conviction. The presentence probation report did not recommend that the trial court order a drug program fee, and the trial court did not orally impose such a fee at sentencing. The abstract of judgment, however, contains a $150 drug program fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.7) and its attendant penalties, assessments and surcharges, which total $600.

DISCUSSION

Where the abstract of judgment differs from the court’s oral pronouncements, the oral pronouncement of judgment controls. (People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070; People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 (Mitchell).) “The clerk cannot supplement the judgment the court actually pronounced by adding a provision to the minute order [or] the abstract of judgment. [Citation.]” (People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 387-388.) Errors in the abstract of judgment may be corrected by this court on appeal. (Mitchell, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 185; People v. Garcia…