Opinion
C051450
5-31-2007
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RONALD EDWIN ALBEE, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
As part of a negotiated plea, defendant Ronald Edwin Albee pleaded no contest to second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) in case No. 001892, and to separate counts of grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)), in case Nos. 004652 and 004108. The trial court suspended an aggregate prison term of four years and four months, and placed defendant on probation for five years, subject to various conditions.
Defendant subsequently admitted to violating probation, and the trial court imposed the original four-year four-month sentence and a $600 restitution fine pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b).
On appeal, defendant contends drug treatment fees imposed pursuant to the original no contest pleas should be stricken and the abstract incorrectly lists the date of conviction. We order the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment to reflect the correct date of conviction and to correct the orders of probation in case Nos. 004108 and 004652.
BACKGROUND
Since defendant pleaded no contest, the facts of his crimes are taken from the probation report.
In case No. 001892, defendant stole a bicycle, stereo, and clothing from William McGuinn on February 11, 2000. The items were worth $1,965.
In case No. 004108, on May 8, 2000, defendant took a bicycle, picture frame, antique telephone, half of a silver serving set, and a ring from Debra Carbahal, along with jewelry and a dagger belonging to her children. The stolen items were worth $2,648.50.
In case No. 004652, defendant took four rings from a display case inside Winters Antiques on June 24, 2000. The stolen rings were worth $825.
DISCUSSION
I
Pursuant to Health and Safety Code sections 11372.5 and 11372.7, the trial court imposed laboratory analysis and drug program fees when it originally pronounced judgment after defendants plea of no contest. As defendant notes, these fees cannot be imposed for the crimes for which defendant pleaded no contest. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11372.5, subd. (a), 11372.7, subd. (a).)
The record does not reflect, and defendant does not contend, that he ever paid the fees. When the trial court sentenced defendant for the probation violation it noted "there is [sic] no drug treatment fees . . . ." The abstract of judgment shows that no laboratory analysis or drug treatment fee was imposed when defendant was sentenced for the probation violation.
Although the trial court referred to drug treatment fees rather than laboratory analysis or drug program fees, we conclude the trial court corrected the error made at defendants initial sentencing. Defendant is no longer subject to the fees improperly imposed at the original sentencing.
When the trial court initially sentenced defendant to probation, it did not specifically refer to the drug program or treatment fees when it pronounced sentence. Instead, the court explained to defendant there were "fines and fees listed" in the probation order and he was to set up a payment schedule with the court once he was released from custody.
The orders of probation in case Nos. 004108 and 004652 refer to the drug treatment fees. These references to the improperly imposed fees are errors which this court can correct. Accordingly, we order the trial court to amend the probation orders in case Nos. 004108 and 004652 to delete the conditions that defendant shall pay the drug treatment and drug program fees in Health and Safety Code sections 11372.5 and 11372.7.
II
As both parties point out, the abstract of judgment mistakenly lists defendants convictions in case Nos. 004108 and 001892 as occurring on March 17, 2005, even though he pleaded no contest in those cases on March 17, 2003.
We shall order that the abstract of judgment be amended to correct the errors.
DISPOSITION
The trial court is directed to forward an amended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation reflecting that defendant was convicted in case Nos. 004108 and 001892 on March 17, 2003, and to amend the probation orders in case Nos. 004108 and 004652 to show that defendant was not subject to the fees specified in Health and Safety Code sections 11372.5 and 11372.7. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.
We concur:
DAVIS, J.
BUTZ, J.