Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County Nos. 07CM3288 & 07CM2989, Peter M. Schultz, Judge.
Robert P. Whitlock, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Kathleen A. McKenna and Brian Alvarez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Hill, J., and Kane, J.
In case No. 07CM2989, appellant, Jose Vega, pled guilty to misdemeanor domestic battery (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (e)(1)). In case No 07CM3288, Vega pled guilty to possession of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)) and admitted violating his probation in case No. 07CM2989. On appeal, Vega contends the court erred in imposing two court security fines and two restitution fines in case No. 07CM2989. We will affirm.
FACTS
On August 17, 2007, Kings County deputies responded to a domestic disturbance call at a house in Hanford where Vega was staying. The deputies arrested Vega after observing him slap his girlfriend, cutting her lip (case No. 07M2989).
On October 12, 2007, Vega entered his guilty plea to the domestic battery charge and was placed on probation for three years. The court also ordered Vega to pay several fines and fees, including a $20 court security fee and a $100 restitution fine.
On October 15, 2007, Hanford police officers responded to a trailer park and found Vega yelling and trying to enter a trailer that did not belong to him. After the officer arrested Vega, a jail house search uncovered a baggie containing .24 grams of cocaine (case No. 07M3288).
On November 26, 2007, Vega pled guilty to possession of cocaine and admitted violating his probation in case No. 07M2989.
On December 21, 2007, the court sentenced Vega to a three-year term on his possession conviction and a concurrent one-year term on his domestic battery conviction. In sentencing him on the domestic violence conviction the court stated,
“As to Case 07CM2989, misdemeanor violation of section 243(e)(1) of the Penal Code, probation is terminated. Mr. Vega is committed to 12 months in custody, to be served in any penal institution. He’s given credit for the time periods in custody which are described at page 14 of the probation officer’s report. August 17th, October 10th through 12th and October 15th through December 21st, 2007, 72 actual days, for which 36 days conduct credits are awarded, a total of 108 days credit for time served.
“A $20 court security fine is ordered.
“A $100 restitution fine is ordered pursuant to Section 1202.4(b) of the Penal Code.
“And, apparently, he had not made any payments, at all, on those fines that were previously ordered.
“The $100 restitution fine previously ordered and suspended pursuant to Section 1202.44 of the Penal Code is now due.” (Italics added.)
Vega’s abstract of judgment indicates that in case No. 07CM2989 the court imposed a single $20 court security fine and a single $100 restitution fine.
DISCUSSION
Penal Code section 1465.8, subdivision1465.8, subd. (a)(1) provides:
“To ensure and maintain adequate funding for court security, a fee of twenty dollars ($20) shall be imposed on every conviction for a criminal offense . . . .”
Penal Code section 1202.4, provides, in pertinent part:
“(b) In every case where a person is convicted of a crime, the court shall impose a separate and additional restitution fine, ...
“(1) The restitution fine shall be set at the discretion of the court and commensurate with the seriousness of the offense, but … shall not be less than one hundred dollars ($100), and not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), if the person is convicted of a misdemeanor.”
Vega contends that in case No. 07CM2989, the court imposed a $20 court security fine and a $100 restitution fine on October 12, 2007, when he was initially placed on probation in that case and a second court security fine of $20 and a second restitution fine of $100 when it sentenced him on December 21, 2007. Vega further contends the second set of fines were unauthorized and must be stricken because the court had already imposed these fines when he was initially placed on probation on his domestic violence conviction. Vega is wrong.
At the December 21, 2007, sentencing hearing, the court ordered Vega to pay a restitution fine of $100 and a court security fee of $20 noting that he had not paid anything at all “on those fines, that had been previously ordered.” Further, Vega’s abstract of judgment indicates that the court imposed only one court security fine and one restitution fine in case No. 07CM2989. These circumstances show that at the December 21, 2007, hearing, in ordering Vega to pay a restitution fine and a court security fee, the court was merely restating its previous order with respect to this fine and fee, which Vega had not complied with. Accordingly, we reject Vega’s contention that the court imposed a second restitution fine and court security fee that were unauthorized.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.