From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Formosa

California Court of Appeals, Third District, Sutter
Feb 29, 2008
No. C057012 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 29, 2008)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ERIC TODD FORMOSA, Defendant and Appellant. C057012 California Court of Appeal, Third District, Sutter February 29, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Super. Ct. No. CRF06-2586

CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.

In October 2006, responding to a call, Yuba City police officers found defendant Eric Todd Formosa “slumped over in the driver’s seat” of a car. When the defendant stepped out of the car at the officer’s request, a pocket knife fell from defendant’s body. A search revealed an “expandable baton” in defendant’s pocket. The police then searched the car and found a hypodermic needle.

Defendant was arrested and charged with possession of a billy club in violation of Penal Code section 12020, subdivision (a)(1) [count 1] and possession of a hypodermic needle in violation of Business and Professions Code section 4140 [count 2]. The charging document also alleged four prior convictions. Defendant pled guilty to both counts and admitted one prior. The remaining priors were dismissed. Defendant was then sentenced to four years in state prison.

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 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 of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant.

Our examination of the record reveals an error in the omission of the court security fee. Penal Code section 1465.8 requires the court to impose a $20 court security fee for each of defendant’s two convictions. Accordingly, the court should have imposed a $40 court security fee. We shall modify the judgment accordingly.

Any party aggrieved by this procedure may petition for rehearing. (Gov. Code, § 68081.)

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

Disposition

The judgment is modified to impose a $40 court security fee. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment and to forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

We concur: SIMS, Acting P.J. MORRISON, J.


Summaries of

People v. Formosa

California Court of Appeals, Third District, Sutter
Feb 29, 2008
No. C057012 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 29, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Formosa

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ERIC TODD FORMOSA, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Third District, Sutter

Date published: Feb 29, 2008

Citations

No. C057012 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 29, 2008)