Opinion
C066684 Super. Ct. No. 09F05523
12-29-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KEVIN PAUL HOLFORD, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Defendant Kevin Paul Holford appeals the imposition of a jail booking fee and a jail classification fee, contending there is no substantial evidence that he had the ability to pay those fees. We disagree and affirm.
BACKGROUND
The underlying facts and procedural history for the charged offenses are not relevant to the issue on appeal and are not set forth.
Defendant pleaded no contest to two counts of assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2)) and admitted personal firearm use enhancement allegations on each count (Pen. Code, § 12022.5, subd. (a)) in exchange for a stipulated sentence of ten years four months. The trial court sentenced him in accordance with the plea and ordered him to pay various fines and fees, including a jail booking fee of $270.17 and a jail classification fee of $51.34. Prior to the imposition of sentence, defendant asked the trial court to reduce those fees because he was indigent and would be incarcerated. The trial court denied the request.
DISCUSSION
Defendant contends the trial court erred in imposing the jail booking and classification fees under Government Code section 29550.2, as there was no evidence he was able to pay those fees.
The jail classification and booking fees are discretionary, and may only be imposed if the trial court finds the defendant has the ability to pay. (People v. Pacheco (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1392, 1399-1400 (Pacheco).) That finding need not be made expressly on the record, but may be implied; however, it must be supported by substantial evidence. (Id. at p. 1400; People v. Staley (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 782, 785 (Staley).) Accordingly, on review, we resolve all inferences and conflicts in favor of the judgment, and determine whether there is "substantial evidence of solid value . . . which will support the trial court's decision." (People v. Kurey (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 840, 848-849, fn. omitted.)
In assessing a defendant's ability to pay, the trial court is not limited to defendant's current financial circumstances. Defendant need not have present employment or available "cash on hand." (Staley, supra, 10 Cal.App.4th at p. 785; People v. Frye (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1483, 1485, 1487.) The determination may also consider the defendant's future financial prospects. (People v. Frye, supra, 21 Cal.App.4th at p. 1487.)
Here, the total amount of fees imposed under Government Code section 29550.2 is $321.51. The record indicates defendant is 25 years old and has a high school diploma and a GED certificate. Before he was arrested, he was employed at a telemarketing company for four months. His previous employment history included working at a fast food restaurant and a warehouse. While the charges in this matter were pending, he made a payment of over $300 on a fine in an unrelated case. He was also providing support for his one-year-old daughter. Defendant will be approximately 34 years old when he is released from prison. There is no indication defendant has any disability that would hinder his earning capacity. (Staley, supra, 10 Cal.App.4th at p. 786.) And there is nothing in the record to suggest that upon his release, he will be unable to find and maintain productive employment. Accordingly, we find there is substantial evidence in the record to support the trial court's decision.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
MAURO, J. We concur:
HULL, Acting P. J.
HOCH, J.