Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The People v. Arturo Barajas Martinez

September 19, 2012

THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
ARTURO BARAJAS MARTINEZ, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.



(Super. Ct. No. 105497, CRF075478)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hoch , J.

P. v. Martinez

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 pled no contest in 2007 (case No. CRF075478) to possessing methamphetamine and received probation. In 2011, defendant pled no contest in case No. CFR105497 to possessing methamphetamine, and admitted serving prior prison terms. Defendant's probation having been revoked in case No. CRF075478, the trial court sentenced defendant to prison on both matters in the same proceeding and imposed various fines and fees.

On appeal, defendant contends he is entitled to additional custody credits, and the trial court erred in imposing some of the fines and fees. He also asks that the abstract of judgment be amended to state with particularity the amount and statutory bases of all fines and fees, and amended to indicate that fines, fees, and assessments associated with case No. CRF075478 are imposed as previously ordered on December 6, 2007, to ensure they are not collected more than once.

The People concede that defendant is entitled to all the relief he seeks. We agree.

I.

Custody Credits

At sentencing, defendant was awarded 720 days' credit in case No. CFR105497, based on the probation officer's calculation that defendant had spent 360 days in actual custody. The parties agree that the mathematical calculation was incorrect: defendant should have been credited with 361 days' actual custody, for a total of 722 days' credit. We order the judgment amended to award defendant two additional days' custody credit.

II.

Court Security Fee and Court Facilities Assessment

The parties are correct that the $40 court security fee imposed in connection with case No. CRF075478 should be reduced to $20. The version of Penal Code*fn1 section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1), in effect in 2007 provided for a $20 court security fee per conviction. The Legislature intended the statute to apply as of the date of conviction (People v. Alford (2007) 42 Cal.4th 749, 754), and defendant was convicted in 2007 when he entered his no contest plea. (People v. Davis (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 998, 1001.) Although the Legislature later amended section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1), to increase the court security fee to $30 (Stats. 2009, 4th Ex. Sess. 2009-2010, ch. 22, § 29) and then to $40 (Stats. 2010, ch. 720, § 33), those amendments were ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.