Opinion
E052405
11-16-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GUILLERMO RAY SERRATO, Defendant and Appellant.
Jerry D. Whatley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, and Kevin Vienna, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.Nos. RIF146905 & RIF148597)
OPINION
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Roger A. Luebs, Judge. Affirmed.
Jerry D. Whatley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, and Kevin Vienna, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On October 8, 2010, defendant and appellant Guillermo Ray Serrato pled guilty to burglary (Pen. Code, § 459, count 1) and carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, count 3) in case No. RIF146905, and theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a); count 1) in case No. RIF148597. He also admitted a gang enhancement (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)) as to the burglary, and a gang firearm use enhancement (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subds. (b) & (e)(1)) as to the carjacking. Pursuant to his plea agreement, defendant was immediately sentenced to an aggregate term of 23 years eight months in prison. This consisted of the upper term of nine years for the carjacking; 10 years for the gang firearm use enhancement; one year four months for one-third of the four-year midterm for the burglary; three years four months for one-third of the 10-year gang enhancement; and two years concurrent for the theft. Defendant challenges the imposition of three (one for each convicted count) $30 Government Code section 70373 facilities assessments. We affirm.
DISCUSSION
Government Code section 70373, subdivision (a)(1), provides: "To ensure and maintain adequate funding for court facilities, an assessment shall be imposed on every conviction for a criminal offense . . . . The assessment shall be imposed in the amount of thirty dollars ($30) for each misdemeanor or felony . . . ." The statute was enacted in 2008 and became effective January 1, 2009. (Stats. 2008, ch. 311, § 6.5, p. 2113.)
Defendant committed his offenses in 2008, but was not convicted until he entered his guilty plea in 2010. Pursuant to Government Code section 70373, the trial court imposed three facilities assessments.
Defendant contends that the assessments were improper because he committed his crimes in 2008, before Government Code section 70373 became effective, and the assessments cannot apply to crimes committed before the statute became effective.
We rejected an identical argument in People v. Lopez (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 474, 478-480 (Fourth Dist., Div. Two). In Lopez, we expressly agreed with the reasoning of other recent decisions that have uniformly held that the date of conviction, not the date of the crime, controls application of the statute and the liability for the assessment. (Id. at pp. 479-480, citing People v. Castillo (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1413-1415 [Third Dist.]; People v. Fleury (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1486, 1492-1494 [Third Dist.]; People v. Davis (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 998, 1000-1001 [Second Dist., Div. Four]; People v. Phillips (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 475, 477-479 [Fifth Dist.]; People v. Knightbent (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1105, 1111-1112 [Third Dist.].) We see no reason to reconsider our holding in Lopez here.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J.
We concur:
McKINSTER
J.
CODRINGTON
J.
Lopez was decided over six months before defendant filed his opening brief, and over eight months before the People filed their brief. Defendant does not mention Lopez or any of the numerous opinions we cited in Lopez. While the People reference the cases we relied upon in Lopez, they too did not mention Lopez.