The opinion of the court was delivered by: Raye, P.J.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Following a jury trial, defendant Winsley Egerton was convicted of transportation of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)) and transportation of one ounce or less of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11360, subd. (b)), a misdemeanor. The court sentenced defendant to four years in prison.
On appeal, defendant contends the Government Code section 70373 fee imposed by the court was improper, and he was entitled to additional conduct credits pursuant to Penal Code section 4019. We shall modify the conduct credits and affirm the judgment as modified.
On February 1, 2008, Sacramento Police Officer Dustin Smith contacted defendant, who had just gotten out of his parked car. Defendant consented to being searched by Officer Smith, who found .44 gram of marijuana in defendant's jacket pocket. Continuing the search, Smith discovered .5 gram of marijuana in defendant's car and 66.78 grams of cocaine base on defendant.
At sentencing, the court imposed "the criminal conviction assessment fee of $30 pursuant to the new statutory requirements." Defendant contends the court did not comply with the requirement that sentencing courts specify the statutory basis for every fine, fee, or assessment imposed and requests we remand the case for the court to declare the statutory basis for the fee. (See People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200 (High).) The abstract of judgment states the fee was imposed pursuant to Government Code section 70373, which complies with our holding in High. (See High, supra, at p.1200.)
Defendant also contends the trial court improperly imposed a $30 criminal conviction assessment because the statute authorizing it, Government Code section 70373, was not in effect at the time he committed his crime.*fn1
Defendant concedes that we have rejected this claim in a published decision, People v. Castillo (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1410, but asks this court to reconsider the issue. This court rejected the same claim in People v. Fleury (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1486 and People v. Knightbent (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1105. We adhere to Castillo, Fleury, and Knightbent.
The court awarded defendant 178 days of presentence custody credit plus 88 days of conduct credit, for a total of ...