California Court of Appeals, Third District, Second Division
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Joaquin County, No. SF123192A, Lauren P. Thomasson, Judge.
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Jeffrey S. Kross, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Catherine Chatman and Raymond L. Brosterhous II, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury found defendant Danny Vovann Namphonh guilty of continuous sexual abuse of a child under the age of 14, his half sister. (Pen. Code, § 288.5, subd. (a).) The 23-year-old defendant was sentenced to serve 12 years in prison, and is subject to a 20-year six-month parole period following his incarceration. The trial court also ordered defendant to pay a restitution fine of $280, an administrative surcharge of $28, a parole revocation fine of $280 (suspended), a conviction assessment of $30, a court security fee of $40, a sex offender registration fine of $300, a booking fee of $196, and victim restitution in an undetermined amount. In addition, defendant was ordered to reimburse the Stockton Police Department for the victim’s medical examination in the amount of $1, 850.
Defendant raises only one contention on appeal: that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to pay for the victim’s medical examination pursuant to section 1203.1h, subdivision (b), because there is no evidence he is able to pay. We conclude the trial court properly exercised its discretion in determining defendant’s ability to pay under section 1203.1h, subdivision (b). We affirm the judgment.
Section 1203.1h, subdivision (b), provides in relevant part: “In addition to any other costs which a court is authorized to require a defendant to pay, upon conviction of any offense involving sexual assault or attempted sexual assault, including child molestation, the court may require that the defendant pay, to the law enforcement agency, county, or local governmental agency incurring the cost, the cost of any medical examinations conducted on the victim for the collection and preservation of evidence. If the court determines that the defendant has the ability to pay all or part of the cost of the medical examination, the court may set the amount to be reimbursed and order the
to pay that sum to the law enforcement agency... in the manner in which the court believes reasonable and compatible with the defendant’s financial ability. In making the determination of whether a defendant has the ability to pay, the court shall take into account the amount of any fine imposed upon the defendant and ...