IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yolo)
November 4, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
MARTIN WILLIAM LEFFLER, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. 044390)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mauro , J.
P. v. Leffler
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Martin William Leffler contends on appeal that the trial court erred in imposing a $90 court security fee and a $90 court facilities assessment, because those amounts were not authorized at the time of sentencing. The People agree.
The parties are correct. We will modify the judgment.
Defendant pleaded no contest in 2006 to battery with serious bodily injury. (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (d).)*fn1 The trial court sentenced defendant to 10 years in prison, but suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on formal probation for 10 years. In addition to other terms and conditions of probation, the trial court imposed a $20 court security fee. (Former § 1465.8, subd. (a)(1).)
The trial court subsequently found that defendant violated his probation. The trial court revoked probation and sentenced defendant in October 2010 to the previously suspended sentence of 10 years in state prison. Among other fees, the trial court imposed a $90 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). The trial court did not mention the previously imposed $20 court security fee or any increase in that fee, but the abstract of judgment indicates a court security fee of $90. (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1).)
We agree with the parties that the $90 court security fee must be reduced back to $20. The trial court did not mention the court security fee at the 2010 sentencing, and it is unclear why the abstract of judgment indicates a $90 fee.
The version of section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1) in effect in 2006 provided for a $20 court security fee per conviction. The Legislature amended section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1) to increase the court security fee from $20 to $30, effective July 28, 2009. (Stats. 2009, 4th Ex. Sess. 2009-2010, ch. 22, § 29.) The California Supreme Court held that the Legislature intended this statute to apply as of the date of conviction. (People v. Alford (2007) 42 Cal.4th 749, 754.) Defendant's conviction was in 2006 when he entered his no contest plea. (People v. Davis (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 998, 1001.) There is no basis for a $90 court security fee on this record, where defendant was convicted of only one offense.
The parties are also correct that the court facilities assessment should not have been imposed. Government Code section 70373 was not yet in effect at the time of defendant's conviction in 2006, and the assessment should not have been imposed after defendant's conviction. (People v. Tarris (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 612, 628; see also People v. Davis, supra, 185 Cal.App.4th at p. 1001.) Accordingly, that assessment must be stricken.
Defendant further contends the abstract of judgment must be modified to reflect that he was convicted on April 27, 2006, rather than March 15, 2006. This contention lacks merit: the abstract states the correct conviction date. Defendant was convicted on March 15, 2006; he was sentenced on April 27, 2006. (See People v. Davis, supra, 185 Cal.App.4th at p. 1001 [a person stands "convicted" upon the entry of a plea admitting guilt].)
The judgment is modified to (1) reduce the court security fee from $90 to $20, and (2) strike the $90 court facilities assessment. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court shall prepare an amended abstract of judgment and forward a certified copy of the amended abstract of judgment to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
We concur: RAYE, P. J. BUTZ , J.