Full Opinion

Filed 11/12/26 P. v. Thornburg CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) THE PEOPLE, C104561 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 22CF00420, v. 22CF00885, 25CF01500) JEDEDIAH LEE THORNBURG, Defendant and Appellant. Appointed counsel for defendant Jedediah Lee Thornburg asked this court to independently review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) After reviewing the record, we shall order corrections to errors in the sentencing minute orders and the abstract of judgment. The judgment is otherwise affirmed. FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS In January 2022, officers located defendant in a parked car with over 70 gross grams of fentanyl plus methamphetamine, a methamphetamine smoking device, a digital scale, various pills, and over $1,000 in cash. He was charged in Butte County case No. 22CF00420 (Case B) with possession for sale of a controlled substance (fentanyl) (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351; count 01) while released from custody on bail or his own recognizance in Butte County case No. 21CF02104 (Pen. Code, § 12022.1; statutory 1 section citations that follow are to the Penal Code). Defendant waived time and was released on bail. The next month, in February 2022, defendant was pulled over while driving his girlfriend’s car. At the time, his driver’s license was suspended and he was on probation. A search of defendant and the vehicle located several cell phones, multiple baggies of fentanyl (totaling nearly 30 gross grams), and over $1,000 in cash. Defendant was charged in Butte County case No. 22CF00885 (Case A) with possession for sale of a controlled substance (fentanyl) (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351; count 01), transportation of a controlled substance for sale (fentanyl) (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a); count 02), and misdemeanor driving with a suspended or revoked license (Veh. Code, § 14601.2, subd. (a); count 03). Defendant waived time and was released on bail. In March 2022, defendant pleaded not guilty in both cases. He waived time for a preliminary hearing, and in August 2022, waived a preliminary hearing, with each complaint being deemed an information. Defendant remained out of custody. In April 2023, defendant resolved Cases A and B by plea in exchange for an agreement of “no immediate state prison.” In Case A, defendant pleaded no contest to all three counts. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11351, 11352, subd. (a), Veh. Code, § 14601.2, subd. (a).) In Case B, defendant pleaded no contest to count 01 (Health & Saf., Code, § 11351) and the on-bail enhancement was dismissed. Defendant waived his right to a jury or court trial on aggravating factors and agreed the judge could find aggravating factors based on the probation report and could sentence him to the lower, middle, or upper term. Defendant also executed a stipulated judgment forfeiting his seized property, and waived time for sentencing. 2 In June 2023, the trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of six years in county prison, with the execution of sentence suspended, and placed him on formal probation for two years with various terms and conditions, including serving 270 days in custody. In doing so, the court considered the probation report, which recounted defendant’s lengthy criminal history, and took judicial notice (without objection) of the court’s own records in eight prior Butte County criminal cases involving defendant. As relevant here, the trial court designated count 02 (transportation of a controlled substance) in Case A as the principal term and imposed an upper term of five years in county prison, plus an upper term of four years for count 01 (possession for sale of a controlled substance), which it stayed under section 654, and a concurrent six months for count 03 (misdemeanor driving on a suspended license). In Case B, the court imposed a consecutive sentence of one year (one-third the middle term) for possession for sale of a controlled substance (count 01). The court imposed a $300 minimum restitution fine (§ 1202.4) and a $300 probation revocation restitution fine, suspended unless probation was revoked (§ 1202.44) in each case. The court also imposed a $160 court operations assessment ($40 per conviction) (§ 1465.8), a $120 criminal conviction assessment ($30 per conviction) (Gov. Code, § 70373), a $585 criminal laboratory analysis fee under Health & Safety Code section 11372.5 (including a $50 fee plus $145 in penalties per 3 drug conviction),1 a $1,755 drug program fee under Health and Safety Code section 11372.7 (including a $150 fee plus $435 in penalties per drug conviction).2 In August 2023, the probation department filed a petition to revoke defendant’s probation for testing positive for methamphetamine, cocaine, and fentanyl, and failing to report to the Butte County Jail as required. The trial court summarily revoked probation, and defendant was remanded into custody on the violation on October 18, 2023. The next day, defendant admitted the alleged violations, and the court reinstated his probation with the condition that he serve another 90 days in county jail. In September 2024, the probation department filed a second petition to revoke defendant’s probation for multiple Vehicle Code violations. The trial court summarily revoked defendant’s probation and released him on his own recognizance. In October 2024, defendant pleaded no contest to new misdemeanor charges based on the alleged Vehicle Code violations, and based on his plea, the court found he violated probation. The court revoked and reinstated probation on the previous terms and conditions. In March 2025, officers obtained a search warrant for defendant’s property and residence. When they arrived, they observed defendant leaving the house, approaching a car that had pulled up near the house, and leaning into the passenger side window. Defendant fled when officers attempted to make contact, but he was eventually detained 1 The penalty assessments included a $10 court surcharge (§ 1465.7); a $26 state court facilities construction fund fee (Gov. Code, § 70372); a $50 state penalty assessment (Pen. Code, § 1464); a $35 county penalty assessment (Gov. Code, § 76000), a $5 DNA assessment (Gov. Code, § 76104.6), and a $20 DNA assessment (Gov. Code, § 76104.7). 2 The penalty assessments included a $30 court surcharge (§ 1465.7); a $75 state court facilities construction fund fee (Gov. Code, § 70372); a $150 state penalty assessment (§ 1464); a $105 county penalty assessment (Gov. Code, § 76000); a $15 DNA assessment (Gov. Code, § 76104.6); and a $60 DNA assessment (Gov. Code, § 76104.7). 4 with over $2,000 in cash in his possession. A search of his residence located a large quantity of substances that were presumptive positive for methamphetamine and fentanyl, among other contraband. In April 2025, the probation department filed a third petition to revoke defendant’s probation for failure to obey all laws, including possessing controlled substances for sale, possessing a billy or blackjack, and obstructing or delaying a peace officer. Defendant was remanded into custody on May 1, 2025, on the alleged probation violations. Defendant was charged separately in Butte County case No. 25CF01500 (Case C) with possession for sale of a controlled substance (fentanyl) (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351; count 01), possession for sale of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378; count 02), resisting, delaying, or obstructing a peace officer in the discharge of his duties (§ 148, subd. (a)(1); count 03), and misdemeanor possession of a billy or blackjack (§ 22210; count 04). Defendant pleaded not guilty to the charges and denied the alleged probation violations. The probation department subsequently amended the third petition to revoke, adding an allegation that defendant committed a battery with serious bodily injury. In May 2025, defendant pleaded no contest to count 01 (possession for sale of a controlled substance) and count 03 (resisting or delaying a peace officer) in Case C with a maximum possible sentence of four years, and the remaining counts were dismissed with a waiver under People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754. Defendant waived his right to have aggravating factors determined beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury or the judge in a court trial, acknowledged the possibility of consecutive sentences, and agreed that matters of probation and sentencing were within the court’s sole discretion. Given his plea, the trial court found him in violation of probation in Cases A and B. On July 17, 2025, the trial court sentenced defendant in all three cases to an aggregate term of seven years in county prison, with a portion of the sentences in each case to be served as a period of mandatory supervision. In Case A, the court imposed the 5 upper term of five years for count 02, imposed and stayed (§ 654) a four-year upper term on count 01, and imposed a concurrent term of six months for count 03. The court ordered defendant to serve 1,095 days in custody and suspended 730 days to be served on mandatory supervision. In Case B, the court imposed a consecutive term of one year (one-third the middle term) for count 01. The court ordered defendant to serve one day in custody and suspended 364 days to be served on mandatory supervision. In Case C, the court imposed a consecutive term of one year (one-third the middle term) for count 01 and a concurrent term of one year for count 03. The court ordered defendant to serve one day in custody and suspended 364 days to be served on mandatory supervision. The court lifted the stay on the probation revocation restitution fines in Cases A and B, imposed $300 mandatory supervision revocation restitution fines, which were suspended unless mandatory supervision was revoked (§ 1202.45), and ordered defendant to pay all previously imposed fines and fees in those cases. In Case C, the court imposed a $300 minimum restitution fine (§ 1202.4) and imposed and suspended an identical mandatory supervision revocation fine (§ 1202.45). The court also imposed an $80 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8), a $60 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), and a $150 drug program fee plus $435 in penalties and assessments (for a total of $585) (Gov. Code, § 11372.7, subd. (a)) in Case C. The court awarded defendant 224 actual days plus 224 conduct days, for a total of 448 days of presentence credit in Case A, and one day each in Cases B and C. The day after sentencing, the probation department filed a petition to correct defendant’s presentence credits, noting that the time defendant spent in custody between December 1, 2023, and March 8, 2024, was attributable to probation violations in case Nos. 21CF02104 and 22CM00237 and not Case A. On July 24, 2025, the trial court 6 amended the award of presentence credit on Case A to 126 actual days plus 126 conduct days for a total of 252 days. Defendant timely appealed in each case and obtained a certificate of probable cause. DISCUSSION Defendant’s appointed counsel asked this court to independently review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel advised defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed. We have not received any communication from defendant. After reviewing the record, we have discovered multiple errors in the sentencing minutes and abstract of judgment that must be corrected. At the June 2023 sentencing hearing, the trial court suspended execution of a county prison sentence in Cases A and B and placed defendant on probation. The trial court orally imposed the minimum restitution fine under section 1202.4 in each case, and an identical probation revocation restitution fine under 1202.44, stayed pending successful completion of probation. The sentencing minute orders at page three, however, list a parole revocation restitution fine under section 1202.45. (People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 388 (Zackery) [the clerk’s minutes must accurately reflect what occurred at the sentencing hearing].) The trial court is directed to correct the minute orders in both cases to reflect a $300 probation revocation fine imposed pursuant to section 1202.44 and to delete the reference to section 1202.45 (related to parole revocation). The trial court imposed and stayed a four-year midterm sentence on count 01 in Case A. The abstract of judgment incorrectly indicates the court imposed a consecutive one-third the middle term sentence for this count, which it then stayed under section 654. (See People v. Relkin (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1188, 1197-1198 [the one-third the midterm 7 rule only applies to consecutive sentences and does not apply to a sentence stayed under section 654]; Zackery , supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at pp. 389-390 [abstract of judgment cannot add to, or modify, the judgment as orally pronounced by the trial court].) The trial court is directed to correct the abstract of judgment by deleting the mark showing defendant received a consecutive one-third the midterm sentence for count 01 in Case A rather than a full middle term of four years, stayed pursuant to section 654. The abstract of judgment does not include the criminal laboratory analysis fees imposed pursuant to Government Code section 11372.5, subdivision (a) plus applicable penalty assessments in Case A ($195 for one qualifying drug conviction) and in Case B ($195 each for two qualifying drug convictions). The abstract of judgment also fails to show the drug program fees imposed pursuant to Government Code section 11372.7, subdivision (a) plus applicable penalty assessments in Case A ($585 each for two qualifying drug convictions), Case B ($585 for one qualifying drug conviction), and Case C ($585 for one qualifying drug conviction). Accordingly, we shall order the abstract of judgment corrected to accurately reflect the criminal laboratory analysis fees and the drug program fees imposed by the trial court. (Zackery, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at pp. 389- 390.) We find no other arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to correct the June 15, 2023, sentencing minutes in case Nos. 22CF00420 and 22CF00885 to accurately reflect the imposition of a minimum $300 probation revocation restitution fine under section 1202.44 and to delete the reference to a minimum $300 parole revocation restitution fine under section 1202.45. The trial court is further directed to correct the abstract of judgment to delete the mark in the “1/3 consecutive” column related to count “1A” in 8 case No. 22CF00885, and to accurately reflect the fees imposed under Government Code sections 11372.5, subdivision (a) and 11372.7, subdivision (a) for each case. The trial court shall send a copy of the corrected abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. /s/ HULL, J. We concur: /s/ EARL, P. J. /s/ ROBIE, J. 9