Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The People v. Samuel Ernest Roberson

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte)


May 26, 2011

THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
SAMUEL ERNEST ROBERSON, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Super. Ct. Nos. CM033499 & CM033601

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mauro,j.

P. v. Roberson CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

Defendant Samuel Ernest Roberson pleaded no contest in case No. CM033499 to a charge that he failed to register as a sex offender. (Pen. Code, §§ 290.012, subd. (a), 290.018, subd. (b).) He also pleaded no contest in case No. CM033601 to a charge that he possessed methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a).) The trial court denied probation and imposed an aggregate term of two years eight months in state prison, plus various fines, fees and other orders. Because defendant's contentions on appeal focus only on two alleged procedural errors regarding an imposed fine and a penalty assessment, it is unnecessary to set forth a more detailed recitation of the underlying facts and orders.

I Defendant first contends the trial court erred in imposing a $300 sex offender fine pursuant to Penal Code section 290.3.*fn1 The People correctly concede this error and we thus agree.

A fine pursuant to section 290.3 may be imposed only upon a conviction of certain enumerated crimes. (§§ 290.3, subd. (a); 290, subd. (c).) The crimes for which defendant pleaded no contest in case No. CM033499 -- violations of section 290.012, subdivision (a) and section 290.018, subdivision (b) -- are not among the crimes for which a section 290.3 fine is authorized. (§ 290, subd. (c).) Accordingly, the fine should not have been imposed.

II Defendant also challenges the amount of the county penalty assessment levied on the laboratory analysis and drug program fees. Once again the People correctly concede the error and we thus agree.

At the time of defendant's sentencing on August 19, 2010, Government Code section 76000 authorized Butte County to levy an additional penalty in the amount of six dollars ($6) for every ten dollars ($10) imposed and collected by the trial court as a fine, penalty, or forfeiture for criminal offenses. (Gov. Code, § 76000, subd. (a), former subd. (e); Stats. 2002, ch. 1082, § 5, p. 7003.) Here, however, the trial court imposed an assessment of seven dollars ($7) per every ten dollars ($10) in penal fines.*fn2 Because the assessments imposed pursuant to Government Code section 76000 exceeded the amount authorized by statute when defendant was sentenced, they must be stricken and reimposed in the correct amount.

DISPOSITION

The $300 sex offender fine imposed pursuant to Penal Code section 290.3, and its corresponding assessments, are stricken from the judgment. In addition, the assessments imposed pursuant to Government Code section 76000 are also stricken from the judgment. The matter is remanded to the trial court to recalculate and impose the assessments authorized by Government Code section 76000 on the date of defendant's sentencing. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court shall amend the abstract of judgment to reflect these changes

and shall forward a copy of the amended abstract of judgment to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

We concur: NICHOLSON , Acting P.J. ROBIE ,J.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.