Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA036567. Hayden Zacky, Judge.
Cheryl Barnes Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Susan D. Martynec and Robert M. Snider, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
BOREN, P. J.
Appellant Travelle Rashad Beckwith appeals from the judgment entered following his plea of nolo contendere to possession of cocaine base for sale in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11351.5. He admitted the prior robbery conviction allegation. (Pen. Code, §§ 667.5, subd. (b) & 1170.12.) The trial court sentenced appellant to the lower base term of three years, which it doubled to six years pursuant to the “Three Strikes” law.
On October 20, 2006, appellant was arrested at his house for possession of cocaine base. One count for possessing a controlled substance and firearm in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11370.1, subdivision (a) and one count for possessing a firearm as a twice convicted felon in violation of Penal Code section 12021, subdivision (a)(1) were dismissed.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
Among other sentencing terms, the trial court ordered appellant to pay $1,200 to the state restitution fund, a $50 laboratory fee, and a $20 court security fee. The abstract of judgment ordered appellant to pay the aforementioned fees as well as $110 in court costs.
Appellant contends that the judgment must be amended to reflect that he was not ordered to pay court costs in any amount. We disagree.
DISCUSSION
Whether the abstract of judgment must be amended to show that appellant was not ordered to pay court costs
Appellant urges that the trial court did not order appellant to pay any court costs, but the minute order and abstract of judgment reflected $110 in court costs. Citing People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471, for the proposition that a discrepancy between the judgment as orally pronounced and as entered in the minutes is presumed to be a clerical error, he contends that the minute order and abstract of judgment must be amended.
The Court of Appeal may correct the trial court’s omission of state and county penalties, where the trial court is mandated to impose those penalties. (People v. Talibdeen (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1151, 1157 (Talibdeen).) In Talibdeen, the defendant pled no contest to cocaine possession in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a), and admitted a prior strike allegation pursuant to section 1170.12, subdivisions (a)-(d). Our Supreme Court noted that section 1464 requires the trial court to levy a state penalty of 10 dollars for every 10 dollars upon every fine or penalty imposed and collected by the courts for criminal offenses. (Talibdeen, supra, at pp. 1153-1154.) And, Government Code section 76000 requires the trial court to levy an additional penalty of seven dollars for every 10 dollars and the same manner as the amount established by section 1464. (Talibdeen, supra, at p. 1154.) Accordingly, our Supreme Court held that Division Five of this appellate district properly imposed mandatory penalties under those code sections where the trial court failed to do so. (Talibdeen, supra, at p. 1157; People v. Taylor (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 454, 455-456 [where defendant pled guilty to possessing cocaine base for sale and admitted being armed with a handgun and having suffered a prior conviction, appellate court could modify judgment if trial court failed to impose mandatory penalty assessments under sections 1464, 1465.7, and Government Code section 76000, subdivision (a)].)
Section 1464 provides, in part: “(a) Subject to Chapter 12 (commencing with Section 76000) of Title 8 of the Government Code, there shall be levied a state penalty, in an amount equal to ten dollars ($10) for every ten dollars ($10) or fraction thereof, upon every fine, penalty, or forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts for criminal offenses . . . .”
Government Code section 76000 provides, in part: “(a) In each county there shall be levied an additional penalty of seven dollars ($7) for every ten dollars ($10) or fraction thereof which shall be collected together with and in the same manner as the amounts established by Section 1464 of the Penal Code, upon every fine, penalty, or forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts for criminal offenses . . . .”
Under Talibdeen, we may correct the failure of the trial court to impose mandatory fines. Appellant was ordered to pay a $50 laboratory fee. Thus, the state penalty of an amount equal to 10 dollars for every 10 dollars (§ 1464, subd. (a)), plus a surcharge of 20 percent on the base fine (§ 1465.7, subd. (a)), amounted to additional costs of $60. Next, the mandate of seven dollars for every 10 dollars collected (Gov. Code, § 76000, subd. (a)) and the mandate of an additional five dollars (Gov. Code, § 76000, subd. (e)), amounted to more costs of $40. Finally, the mandate of penalties of one dollar for every 10 dollars (Gov. Code, § 76104.6, subd. (a)) and one dollar for every 10 dollars for DNA identification (Gov. Code, § 76104.7), amounted to an additional 10 dollars in costs. Therefore, appellant was properly assessed the final costs of $110 as reflected in the minute order and abstract of judgment.
Section 1465.7, effective after Talibdeen was filed, provides in part: “(a) A state surcharge of 20 percent shall be levied on the base fine used to calculate the state penalty assessment as specified in subdivision (a) of Section 1464.”
Government Code section 76104.6, effective after Talibdeen was filed, provides in part: “(a) For the purpose of implementing the DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act, there shall be levied an additional penalty of one dollar for every ten dollars ($10) or fraction thereof in each county which shall be collected together with and in the same manner as the amounts established by Section 1464 of the Penal Code, upon every fine, penalty, or forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts for criminal offenses . . . .”
Government Code section 76104.7, effective after Talibdeen was filed, provides in part: “In addition to the penalty levied pursuant to Section 76104.6, there shall be levied an additional state-only penalty of one dollar ($1) for every ten dollars ($10) or fraction thereof in each county, which shall be collected together with and in the same manner as the amounts established by Section 1464 of the Penal Code, upon every fine, penalty, or forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts for criminal offenses . . . .”
Appellant’s cites People v. Superior Court (Laff) 25 Cal.4th 703, 738-739, for the proposition that a superior court clerk cannot charge a fee for services rendered to a defendant in a criminal action unless the law specifically authorizes a fee. That case does not assist him because, as noted above, express statutory provisions mandate the imposition of costs on appellant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur:DOI TODD, J. CHAVEZ, J.