IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin)
November 23, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
LATROY ASHANTI TAYLOR, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. SF107249A)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mauro , J.
P. v. Taylor 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Latroy Ashanti Taylor pleaded guilty to assault with a firearm and admitted certain enhancements. The trial court sentenced defendant to prison, ordered him to pay restitution, and imposed various fines and fees, including a $30 court security fee and a $30 court facilities assessment.
Defendant contends on appeal that the trial court erred in imposing the $30 court security fee and the $30 court facilities assessment. He argues the court security fee should only have been $20, and the statute for the court facilities assessment had not yet been enacted at the time of his conviction. The People agree, and so do we.
We will modify the judgment to reduce the court security fee to $20, and to strike the $30 court facilities assessment.
Defendant pleaded guilty in 2008 to assault with a firearm. As part of the plea, he admitted personally using a firearm and personally inflicting great bodily injury on the victim. (Pen. Code, §§ 245, subd. (a)(2), 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022.7, subd. (a).)*fn1
The trial court sentenced defendant to 15 years in prison, ordered him to pay restitution in the amount of $27,718.05, and imposed various fines and fees, including a $30 court security fee (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)) and a $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373).
Defendant is correct that the court security fee should be reduced to $20. The version of section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1) in effect in 2008 provided for a $20 court security fee per conviction. The California Supreme Court held that the Legislature intended the statute to apply as of the date of conviction. (People v. Alford (2007) 42 Cal.4th 749, 754.) Defendant was convicted in 2008 when he entered his guilty plea. (People v. Davis (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 998, 1001.) Although the Legislature amended section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1) to increase the court security fee from $20 to $30, that amendment was not effective until July 28, 2009. (Stats. 2009, 4th Ex. Sess. 2009-2010, ch. 22, § 29.)
Defendant is also correct that the court facilities assessment should not have been imposed, because Government Code section 70373 was not yet in effect at the time of defendant's conviction in 2008. (People v. Tarris (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 612, 628; see also People v. Davis, supra, 185 Cal.App.4th at p. 1001; People v. Castillo (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1414.)
The judgment is modified to reduce the court security fee from $30 to $20, and to strike the $30 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: ROBIE , Acting P. J. BUTZ , J.