(Super. Ct. No. 09F01030)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Butz , 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Defendant Corey Jamaul Brown pleaded no contest to possession of cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, former § 11351.5--counts one & five),*fn1 possession of MDMA (ecstasy) (former § 11377, subd. (a)--count two), possession of not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana (former § 11357, subd. (b)--count three), and resisting a law enforcement officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)--count four). He admitted that he committed count five while released on bail (Pen. Code, § 12022.1), and that he had a prior narcotics conviction (§ 11370.2, subd. (a)).
After his Marsden motion*fn2 was denied, defendant was sentenced to state prison for nine years and was ordered to pay, inter alia, a $150 drug program fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.7) and a $263.85 booking fee and $28.75 classification fee (Gov. Code, § 29550.2). He was awarded custody and conduct credits in accordance with the January 25 and September 28, 2010 amendments to Penal Code sections 4019 and 2933: 159 actual days and 159 conduct credits for a total of 318 days of presentence custody credit. The trial court issued a certificate of probable cause.
On appeal, defendant contends (1) his Marsden motion was erroneously denied, and (2) the drug program, booking, and classification fees must be stricken because the record does not demonstrate his ability to pay the fees. We shall affirm the judgment.
The facts of defendant's offenses are not at issue and need not be set forth in this opinion.
Defendant contends his June 18, 2010 Marsden motion was erroneously denied because he had articulated specific facts that, if true, required that his appointed counsel be relieved and new counsel appointed. Specifically, he claims he raised his concern that counsel had not investigated a recanting informant. The Attorney General counters that defendant's complaint regarding ...