(Super. Ct. No. CRF10419)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mauro , 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Ernesto Miguel Arteaga, Sr., pleaded guilty to continuous sexual abuse of a child under age 11 between April 1993 and April 2001.*fn1 (Pen. Code, § 288.5, subd. (a).)*fn2 He was sentenced to prison for 12 years and was ordered to pay, among other things, a $300 sex crime fine (§ 290.3) plus a $300 state penalty assessment (§ 1464, subd. (a)(1)) and a $210 county penalty assessment (Gov. Code, § 76000, subd. (a)(1)); a $120 DNA penalty assessment (Gov. Code, §§ 76104.6, 76104.7); a $60 emergency medical services penalty assessment (Gov. Code, § 76000.5); a $150 court facilities fee (Gov. Code, § 70372); a $60 state surcharge (§ 1465.7); and a $40 court security fee (§ 1465.8).*fn3
Defendant contends, and the Attorney General agrees, that because the crimes occurred in 2001 or earlier, (1) the $300 sex crime fine must be reduced to $200, (2) the $120 DNA penalty assessment must be stricken, (3) the $60 emergency medical services penalty assessment must be stricken, (4) the $150 court facilities fee and the $60 state surcharge must be stricken, and (5) the $40 court security fee must be reduced to $30. We agree with these contentions. Defendant further contends (6) that the state and county penalty assessments to the sex crime fine must be stricken. The Attorney General disagrees with this contention and so do we. Nonetheless, because the sex crime fine must be reduced to $200, the state penalty assessment must also be reduced to $200 and the county penalty assessment must be reduced to $140.
We will modify the judgment accordingly.
Because the matter was resolved by plea, the background is taken from the prosecutor's statement of the factual basis for the plea. Given defendant's contentions on appeal, it is only necessary to provide a brief summary of the background.
Between April 1993 and April 2001, defendant engaged in three or more acts of sexual conduct with E.L. Defendant's wife and E.L.'s mother are sisters. E.L. would frequently stay the night or visit with her cousins, and defendant began molesting E.L. when she was three years old.
Among other things, in the middle of the night defendant would remove E.L.'s clothes, lick her breasts, vagina and rectum, and put one or more fingers in her vagina and rectum. Defendant would have E.L. place her hand around his penis and masturbate him, and defendant would rub his penis between the lips of her vagina without putting it inside. He would also rub the head of his erect penis between her buttocks and around the opening of her rectum. On a number of occasions, defendant had E.L. masturbate herself while he observed. E.L. estimated that these events happened approximately 50 times a year between April 1993 and April 2001.
E.L. also described incidents when she was 12 and 13 in which defendant put his penis in her vagina and rectum by force, causing her to bleed. Defendant would tell her that if she ever told anyone he would kill her by chopping her up into pieces.
Defendant was interviewed by Detective Million. Defendant admitted that he molested his niece E.L. from the time she was five years old until she was eight years old. He described the incidents as his placing the bare skin of his hand on the bare skin of the child's vagina and rubbing it, and that ...