From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Cooley

California Court of Appeals, Fifth District
Jul 11, 2008
No. F053301 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 11, 2008)

Opinion

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County No. F01659519-3, David Gottlieb, Judge.

Kathleen Woods Novoa, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Charles A. French and Stephanie A. Mitchell, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


OPINION

THE COURT

Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Dawson, J. and Kane, J.

Marvin Keith Cooley pled guilty to transportation of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)) and possession of a smoking device (id., § 11364), as well as two prior prison term enhancements (Pen. Code, § 667.5) and one prior conviction that constituted a strike within the meaning of the three strikes law (id., § 667, subds. (b)-(i)). The trial court struck the prior conviction, sentenced Cooley to a total of five years in prison, suspended the sentence, and placed him on probation. Cooley was placed in a drug program.

Cooley violated probation four times, each related to his drug use and failure to complete a drug program. Cooley was ordered to serve his five-year sentence after admitting the fourth violation of probation.

The facts are taken from Cooley’s opening brief since they do not affect the resolution of this appeal.

The only issue is whether the $20 court security fee imposed pursuant to Penal Code section 1465.8 violated either the ex post facto clauses of the federal and state Constitutions or Penal Code section 3, which prohibits retroactive application of amendments to the Penal Code.

As Cooley admits in his reply brief, the California Supreme Court rejected these arguments in People v. Alford (2008) 42 Cal.4th 749, decided after the opening brief was filed in this case. We are bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455) and therefore reject Cooley’s arguments.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Cooley

California Court of Appeals, Fifth District
Jul 11, 2008
No. F053301 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 11, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Cooley

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARVIN KEITH COOLEY, Defendant…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fifth District

Date published: Jul 11, 2008

Citations

No. F053301 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 11, 2008)