Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR33671
Jones, P.J.
Fere Habte Zekarias appeals from a judgment entered after he pleaded no contest to assault with a deadly weapon. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2).) He challenges a $20 court security fee that was imposed. We find no error and affirm.
All further section references will be to the Penal Code.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On March 21, 2003, Santa Rosa police were dispatched to the scene of a drive-by shooting. When they arrived they found a man named Salcedo lying on the sidewalk. He had been shot in the chest. Several witnesses described the suspect vehicle as a white sedan with three Black male adults inside. One witness said appellant had shouted gang-related language and then fired the shot that injured Salcedo. Appellant was arrested on March 29, 2003. He admitted he was in the car at the time of the shooting, but claimed another man had fired the shot that injured Salcedo.
Based on these facts, an information was filed charging appellant with numerous counts. The case was resolved through negotiation. Appellant pleaded no contest to a single count of assault with a deadly weapon and admitted the offense was committed for the benefit of a street gang. (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1).) In exchange, all other counts and enhancements were dismissed.
On January 5, 2007, the court sentenced appellant to two years on the assault with a deadly weapon conviction, plus five years for the gang enhancement for a total of seven years in prison.
II. DISCUSSION
When the court sentenced appellant, the court also ordered appellant to pay a $20 court security fee under section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1). As is relevant, that section states, “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 . . . .”
Section 1465.8 became operative on August 17, 2003 (Stats. 2003, ch. 159, § 25), about five months after appellant committed the crime that is at issue, but more than three years before he was sentenced. Appellant now contends that requiring him to pay the $20 fee violated the federal and state constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto laws (U.S. Const., art.1, § 10, cl. 1; Cal. Const., art. I, § 9) and the statutory prohibition against the retroactive application of penal laws (§ 3).
Our Supreme Court recently rejected both of these arguments in People v. Alford (2007) 42 Cal.4th 749. As to retroactivity, the Alford court stated: “Section 1465.8’s legislative history supports the conclusion the Legislature intended to impose the court security fee to all convictions after its operative date. (Id. at p. 754.) The court also held the fine did not violate ex post facto principles because it served a “nonpunitive purpose.” (Id. at p. 756.) We are, of course, required to follow Alford. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455.)
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Needham, J., Stevens, J.
Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.