Full Opinion

Filed 10/28/26 P. v. Wagner CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) THE PEOPLE, C104059 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 24FE011769) v. CHRISTOPHER LEE WAGNER, Defendant and Appellant. Appointed counsel for defendant Christopher Lee Wagner asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Our review of the record disclosed that the trial court’s imposition of fines and assessments is unclear. We will affirm defendant’s convictions but reverse the sentence and remand the matter for the trial court to clarify its imposition of fines and assessments. I The factual background is taken from the prosecutor’s stated factual basis for defendant’s plea during the plea hearing. Defendant lived with his mother, his wife, his daughter (the victim), and his three other children. Between May 2022 and May 2024, when the victim was 11 and 12 years old, defendant entered the victim’s bedroom about once a week late at night or early in the morning and touched her while she slept. The victim estimated that defendant touched her vagina more than 10 times, that he digitally 1 penetrated her vagina more than 10 times, that he touched her stomach between five and 10 times, and that he touched her breasts once. Child Protective Services and law enforcement were contacted on May 30, 2024. At the time, the victim was 13 years old. In May 2025, defendant pleaded no contest to nine counts of committing a lewd or lascivious act on a child under the age of 14 years (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a) -- counts 1 through 9) 1, admitted aggravating factors, and also admitted a special circumstance allegation regarding substantial sexual contact in exchange for a stipulated 24-year lid (with sentencing discretion left to the court) and dismissal of the remaining charges at sentencing. The trial court sentenced defendant to 24 years in prison, consisting of the upper term of eight years on count 1 and consecutive terms of two years each (one-third the midterm) on counts 2 through 9. The remaining charges were dismissed. The trial court awarded 376 days of total credit (327 actual days plus 49 conduct days (§ 2933.1)). The court ordered defendant to register as a sex offender pursuant to section 290 and issued a 10-year criminal protective order (§ 136.2, subd, (i)). Regarding fines and assessments, the court stated: “There’ll be a restitution fine in an [amount] of [$]7,200 pursuant to [section] 1202.4. The [c]ourt will stay any mandatory fines and fees and … [t]he [c]ourt will impose that which are mandatory.” The abstract of judgment lists a $7,200 restitution fine, a $7,200 parole revocation fine, a $360 court operations assessment, a $270 criminal conviction assessment, and a $300 sex offender’s fine. The trial court denied defendant’s request for a certificate of probable cause. 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 II Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant. Our review of the record disclosed that the trial court’s imposition of fines and assessments is unclear. A trial court must include a detailed recitation of all the fines and assessments imposed at sentencing. (See People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200.) The trial court orally imposed a $7,200 restitution fine under section 1202.4, but then stated: “The [c]ourt will stay any mandatory fines and fees and … [t]he [c]ourt will impose that which are mandatory.” We are unable to determine what specific financial obligations the court intended to impose. The abstract of judgment lists a $7,200 parole revocation fine, a $360 court operations assessment, a $270 criminal conviction assessment, and a $300 sex offender’s fine, but it is not clear from the record which of those amounts, if any, the trial court orally imposed. An abstract of judgment “is not the judgment of conviction; it does not control if different from the trial court’s oral judgment and may not add to or modify the judgment it purports to digest or summarize.” (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185; see also People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385 [“Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.”].) Accordingly, we will remand the matter for the trial court to state on the record the fines and assessments imposed. We have found no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. 3 DISPOSITION Defendant’s convictions are affirmed. The sentence is reversed and the matter is remanded for the trial court to impose sentence and to clarify on the record the fines and assessments imposed. The court shall prepare an amended abstract of judgment and forward a copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. /S/ MAURO, J. We concur: /S/ HULL, Acting P. J. /S/ DAMRELL, J. 4