P. v. Carmichael
Filed 6/3/08 P. v. Carmichael CA1/2
Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MAILE M. CARMICHAEL, Defendant and Appellant. | A106894 (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 5-032055-6) |
This case returns to us for reconsideration in light of People v. Alford(2007) 42 Cal.4th 749 (Alford). Maile Carmichael appealed from convictions of possession for sale of methamphetamine, sale of methamphetamine and conspiracy. In our prior opinion (People v. Carmichael (Jan. 9, 2006, A106894), rev. granted May 10, 2006, transferred April 9, 2008), we struck orders requiring appellant to pay restitution to the Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement for buy funds and to pay a court security fee. Following Alford,we now affirm the trial courts imposition of the security fee. The Supreme Courts decision in Alford does not affect our previous resolution of the restitution issue, to which we adhere.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
A detailed recitation of the procedural history of this case can be found in our prior opinion and need not be repeated here. Appellant was convicted on April 2, 2004, of offenses committed in February and April 2003. She was sentenced to a three-year prison term and ordered to pay restitution and a number of fines and fees, including a $20 court security fee. On her appeal to this court, we struck both the restitution order and the court security fee. The Supreme Court granted review of our decision (People v. Carmichael, S141415, May 10, 2006) and subsequently transferred the case back to us for reconsideration in light of Alford. (People v. Carmichael, S141415, April 9, 2008.)
DISCUSSION
The only issue now before us is appellants contention that the trial court erred in imposing a $20 security fee under Penal Code section 1465.8 because her offenses were committed before the effective date of the statute authorizing such fees. This precise contention was rejected in Alford, supra, 42 Cal.4th at pages 753-755. We are duty bound to follow (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455) and therefore reject appellants challenge.
The judgment, as modified to strike the restitution order under Penal Code section 1202.4 pursuant to our prior opinion, is affirmed.
_________________________
Kline, P.J.
We concur:
_________________________
Haerle, J.
_________________________
Lambden, J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Property line Lawyers.
