P. v. Casamajor
Filed 3/6/09 P. v. Casamajor 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Lassen)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MATTHEW GORDON CASAMAJOR, Defendant and Appellant. | C058904 (Super. Ct. No. CR021427) |
After pleading guilty in 2005 to possessing methamphetamine and driving under the combined influence of drugs and alcohol, defendant Matthew Gordon Casamajor was placed on formal probation for five years. The trial court imposed numerous conditions of probation and ordered defendant to pay fees and fines, including a criminal laboratory fee of $150 ($50 fee plus a penalty assessment of $100) pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 11372.5 and a drug program fine of $450 ($150 fine plus a penalty assessment of $300) pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 11372.7.
In 2008, after defendant twice violated the terms of probation, the trial court revoked probation, sentenced him to three years in state prison, and ordered him to pay a criminal laboratory fee of $155 ($50 fee plus a $105 penalty assessment) and a drug program fine of $465 ($150 fine plus a penalty assessment of $315).[1]
On appeal, defendant contends the laboratory fee and drug program fine imposed in 2008 were unauthorized because the same fee and fine--in slightly lesser amounts--had already been imposed when probation was granted in 2005. Conceding the trial court erred, the People ask for modification of the abstract of judgment to reflect that the fee and fine assessed at sentencing did not create duplicate obligations and were, in fact, the same fines, fees, and assessments originally imposed in the probation order[.]
We agree that the court erred in imposing a laboratory fee and drug program fine in 2008. Health and Safety Code sections 11372.5 and 11372.7 require imposition of a laboratory fee and drug program fine upon a person who is convicted of a qualifying offense, irrespective of any grant of probation. When the triggering event for the imposition of a fine is a conviction, the trial court has no authority to impose a second fine at a later time if probation is revoked. (See People v. Chambers (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 819, 820.) Thus, the imposition of a second, duplicate laboratory fee or drug program fine upon revocation of probation is unauthorized and must be stricken, notwithstanding the absence of an objection at sentencing. (Id. at pp. 821-823; People v. Arata (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 195, 201.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified by striking both the $155 criminal laboratory fee, including penalty assessment, and the $465 drug program fine, including penalty assessment, that the trial court imposed in 2008. As modified, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to (1) amend the abstract of judgment to reflect the $150 laboratory fee ($50 fee plus a penalty assessment of $100) pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11372.5 and a drug program fine of $450 ($150 fine plus a penalty assessment of $300) pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11372.7 that were imposed by the court in 2005, and (2) send a certified copy of the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
SCOTLAND , P. J.
We concur:
SIMS , J.
NICHOLSON , J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] The courts oral imposition of the criminal laboratory fee does not appear in the abstract of judgment. The oral pronouncement controls. (People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471.)
