(Super. Ct. No. 07F08182)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Murray , 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Michael Andreas Shares entered a plea of no contest to unlawful possession of cocaine for sale, transportation of cocaine, unlawful possession of MDMA, and transportation of MDMA.*fn1 (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11351, 11352, subd. (a), 11377, subd. (a), 11379, subd. (a).) Sentenced to three years in prison, defendant appeals.
Defendant contends there is no evidence to support a finding of his ability to pay a $63.85 jail booking fee and a $28.75 jail classification fee imposed at sentencing. He also notes that the abstract of judgment must be corrected to accurately reflect the booking fee imposed.
We conclude that defendant forfeited his challenge to the booking and classification fees by failing to object in the trial court. Accordingly, we shall order a correction to the abstract of judgment and otherwise affirm.
I. Jail Booking and Classification Fees
Defendant waived referral to probation and was sentenced to the stipulated term of three years in state prison. The trial court then imposed a $600 restitution fine and other fees and fines to which defendant did not object, including a $120 court security surcharge fee, a $120 court facility fee, a $50 drug laboratory fee, a $150 drug program fee, and the $28.75 jail classification fee and $63.85 jail booking fee defendant challenges here.
The trial court cited Government Code section 29550.2 as the statutory authority for the jail booking and classification fees.*fn2
The People claim that defendant forfeited his challenge to the booking and classification fees by failing to object at sentencing. Defendant claims that forfeiture does not apply because he is challenging the lack of evidence to support a finding of his ability to pay the fee, citing the rule that a claim of insufficiency of the evidence to support a judgment is cognizable on appeal even absent such a claim in the trial court. We agree with the People.
This court has held on more than one occasion that in order to preserve a challenge to a fee or fine, a defendant must object in the trial court. (People v. Crittle (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 368, 371 [crime prevention fine -- Pen. Code, § 1202.5, subd. (a)]; People v. Hodges (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1348, 1357 (Hodges) [jail booking fee -- Gov. Code, § 29550.2].) Even sufficiency of the evidence claims with respect to fees and fines may be subject to forfeiture. (People v. ...