Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. 08F09686
SIMS, J.Pursuant to a negotiated agreement, defendant Angelina Nicole Walters pled no contest to possession of a completed check with intent to defraud. (Pen. Code, § 475, subd. (c).) The trial court suspended imposition of judgment and placed defendant on five years' probation on various terms and conditions. The trial court also imposed a $60 court security fee. (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1).)
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
On the same day defendant was placed on probation in this case, the trial court also placed defendant on probation in Sacramento County Superior Court case number 08F08788. Defendant’s appeal from that case is before this court in case number C061923 and raises identical issues.
Defendant contends one of the conditions of her probation is unconstitutionally overbroad. She also argues that the court security fee exceeds the statutory maximum. We shall modify the probation order and reduce the fee to the statutory maximum.
FACTS
In light of defendant’s plea, we draw on the facts stated in the probation report. On November 26, 2008, defendant attempted to open a bank account with a stolen check. The bank manager called to verify the funds in the account upon which the check was drawn. When the manager learned there were insufficient funds and the account owner was on active military duty, the manager contacted the police. The accountholder subsequently denied writing the check.
DISCUSSION
I
Probation Condition
Defendant’s conditions of probation require, among other things, that she “not associate with known or reputed users of marijuana, dangerous drugs or narcotics nor be in places where narcotics and/or dangerous drugs are present.” (Italics added.) Defendant contends the italicized language violates her constitutional rights because it imposes an overbroad condition of probation. She argues that the condition should be modified to include a knowledge qualifier. We accept the People's concession that the condition should be modified.
In In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, at pages 889-892, the California Supreme Court held that a probationary condition prohibiting the probationer from associating with anyone who is a member of a specified class of persons, without a requirement that the probationer know the person is a member of the class, is unconstitutionally vague. The Supreme Court also held that an appellate court may insert a knowledge requirement into a probationary condition to cure a vagueness problem. (Id. at p. 892.) Although the challenged condition in this case suffers from overbreadth rather than vagueness, the holding of Sheen K. still applies. Accordingly, we shall insert a knowledge requirement into the challenged probationary condition.
II
Court Security Fee (§ 1465.8)
The trial court imposed a total of $60 in court security fees pursuant to section 1465.8. At the time defendant was placed on probation, subdivision (a)(1) of section 1465.8 instructed that “a fee of twenty dollars ($20) shall be imposed on every conviction for a criminal offense....”
Effective July 28, 2009, the court security fee has been increased to $30. (Stats. 2009-2010, 4th Ex. Sess., ch. 22, § 29.) Defendant was placed on probation on May 4, 2009.
Having been convicted of a single count, defendant is subject to a single $20 fee. (See People v. Schoeb (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 861, 865-866.) As a consequence, two of the three $20 security fees imposed by the trial court must be stricken.
DISPOSITION
The probation condition concerning defendant's presence near marijuana, dangerous drugs, and/or narcotics is modified to state: “Defendant shall not associate with known or reputed users of marijuana, dangerous drugs, or narcotics, nor be in places where she knows marijuana, dangerous drugs, and/or narcotics are or will be present.”
The probation order is modified to reduce the court security fee imposed under subdivision (a)(1) of Penal Code section 1465.8 to a total of $20.
As modified, the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court is directed to amend its records to reflect the modification and to forward the appropriate documents to defendant and to the probation department.
We concur: SCOTLAND, P. J. BLEASE, J.