Opinion
C065771
08-30-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. REMO BERNARDO GILBERT, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Super. Ct. No. 090600)
After his conviction on conspiracy and drug charges by no contest pleas in February 2009, defendant Remo Bernardo Gilbert was placed on three years of formal probation. After finding multiple probation violations, on June 21, 2010, the trial court revoked defendant's probation and sentenced him to prison.
On appeal, defendant claims error in imposition of the court security fees (Pen. Code, § 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), and the drug program fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.7, subd. (a)) at sentencing. The People concede the claimed errors. We agree with the parties and shall order the judgment modified accordingly.
DISCUSSION
I
Court Security Fees
The court imposed a total of $60 in court security fees, $30 for each count, pursuant to Penal Code section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1). Defendant contends, and the People concede, that the court security fee should be reduced to $40, or $20 per count. We agree.
Effective July 28, 2009, the Legislature amended Penal Code section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1) to increase the court security fee from $20 to $30. (Stats. 2009, 4th Ex. Sess. 2009-2010, ch. 22, § 29.) Our Supreme Court concluded the Legislature intended this statute to be applied as of the date of the conviction. (People v. Alford (2007) 42 Cal.4th 749, 754.) Here, defendant entered no contest pleas on February 20, 2009, and thereby suffered "convictions." (People v. Davis (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 998, 1001 [person is convicted upon the return of a guilty verdict by the jury or by the entry of a plea admitting guilt].) Former Penal Code section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1) then provided a $20 court security fee per conviction. (Stats. 2007, ch. 302, § 18.)
II
Drug Program Fee
The abstract of judgment lists a $150 drug program fee, which the court did not orally impose when it pronounced judgment. Defendant contends, and the People concede, that this fee should be stricken. We agree. The trial court did not orally order the drug program fee at sentencing. Nor was there any evidence or finding of ability to pay. Where there is a discrepancy between the court's oral pronouncement of judgment and the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185-186.)
Although defendant twice mistakenly refers to this fee as a "drug lab fee," and lists the amount of the fee as $50 rather than $150, it is obvious from his argument that he intends to challenge the discretionary drug program fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.7, subd. (a)) rather than the mandatory drug lab fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5).
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified to (1) reduce the Penal Code section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1) court security fee from $60 to $40, and (2) strike the $150 drug program fee. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court shall prepare an amended abstract of judgment and forward a certified copy of the amended abstract of judgment to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
DUARTE, J. We concur:
RAYE, P. J.
ROBIE, J.