From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Dumond

Court of Appeals of California, Third District, Calaveras.
Nov 12, 2003
C043751 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 12, 2003)

Opinion

C043751.

11-12-2003

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICKY LAYNE DUMOND, Defendant and Appellant.


On February 18, 2003, pursuant to a plea bargain, defendant Ricky Layne Dumond pled guilty to transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)). Among the conditions of the bargain were that defendant would receive no state prison at the outset and he would be released on his own recognizance pending sentencing after giving a waiver pursuant to People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247. The court explained the Cruz waiver meant that if defendant failed to report for sentencing or committed a new offense while awaiting sentencing or tested positive for drugs, that he was "stuck" with his plea but the court was no longer required to abide by the sentencing agreement. Defendant so agreed and was released on his own recognizance.

On February 27, 2003, the prosecution moved to revoke defendants own recognizance release because he had been arrested on February 25 and found to be in possession of methamphetamine and a syringe. Following a hearing on the matter, the court found defendant in violation of the Cruz waiver and sentenced him to state prison for four years. The court imposed $200 restitution fines in accordance with Penal Code sections 1202.4 and 1202.45. Defendant appealed.

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 elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant.

Our review of the record discloses one error which we are authorized to correct. The trial court neglected to impose the mandatory criminal laboratory analysis fee of $50 required under Health and Safety Code section 11372.5, subdivision (a). (See People v. Turner (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1414-1416 [failure to impose the fee required by Health and Saf. Code, § 11372.5, subd. (a) results in an unauthorized sentence].) This fee coupled with mandated penalty assessments of $50 (Pen. Code, § 1464) and $35 (Govt. Code, § 76000) brings the total to $135.

Aside from the foregoing error, our review of the entire record discloses no arguable error from which defendant would benefit.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is modified to reflect imposition of a $50 criminal laboratory analysis fee pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11372.5, subdivision (a), along with penalty assessments of $50 pursuant to Penal Code section 1464 and $35 pursuant to Government Code section 76000. As modified, the judgment is affirmed and the superior court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment reflecting the modification and forward a certified copy thereof to the Department of Corrections.

We concur: DAVIS, J., and RAYE, J.


Summaries of

People v. Dumond

Court of Appeals of California, Third District, Calaveras.
Nov 12, 2003
C043751 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 12, 2003)
Case details for

People v. Dumond

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICKY LAYNE DUMOND, Defendant and…

Court:Court of Appeals of California, Third District, Calaveras.

Date published: Nov 12, 2003

Citations

C043751 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 12, 2003)