P. .v Celestin-Willis
Filed 5/3/12 P. .v Celestin-Willis CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES SHAKUELL CELESTIN-WILLIS, Defendant and Appellant. | A132569 (Lake County Super. Ct. No. CR923402) |
Defendant James Shakuell Celestin-Willis timely appealed from a judgment entered on his plea. His sole argument on appeal is that the trial court erred when it imposed a criminal justice administration fee pursuant to Government Code section 29550, subdivision (c).[1] Respondent concedes that the fee was not authorized, and asks this court to strike it. We accept respondent’s concession, and order that the fee be stricken, and that the abstract of judgment be corrected accordingly. We otherwise affirm.
On May 31, 2011, defendant pleaded no contest to one felony count of possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), and admitted that he had suffered one prior strike.[2] Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant was sentenced to six years in prison.
At the sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a “criminal justice administrative fee” of $90. Although the court did not specify the statutory basis for the fee, the minute order and the abstract of judgment both state that it was imposed pursuant to section 29550, subdivision (c), the statute cited by the probation department when it recommended the fee. The statute provides that “[a]ny county whose officer or agent arrests a person is entitled to recover from the arrested person a criminal justice administration fee for administrative costs it incurs in conjunction with the arrest . . . .” (Italics added.) The record reveals that defendant was arrested by the Clearlake Police Department, as opposed to the county sheriff’s department. Defendant argues, respondent concedes, and we may take judicial notice of the fact that the Clearlake Police Department is not a county agency. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (h) [judicial notice of facts not reasonably subject to dispute], 459, subd. (a).) The fee thus was unauthorized, an issue that was not waived by defendant’s failure to object below.[3] (People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 852.)
The abstract of judgment therefore shall be modified to strike the $90 fee imposed pursuant to Government Code section 29550, subdivision (c). The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment, and a certified copy of the modified abstract shall be forwarded to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
The judgment is affirmed, subject to the correction in the preceding paragraph.
_________________________
Sepulveda, J.*
We concur:
_________________________
Ruvolo, P.J.
_________________________
Reardon, J.
* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division 4, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
[1] All statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise indicated.
[2] Before the plea, defendant’s trial counsel had declared a doubt about defendant’s competency (Pen. Code, § 1368). Three psychiatrists submitted evaluation reports pursuant to court order, before the court declared defendant competent to stand trial. Defendant mistakenly contends that the three reports are included as part of the non-confidential portion of the clerk’s transcript on appeal, and requests that we order the reports sealed, both in this court and in the superior court. In fact, the three reports were filed confidentially in this court. They are placed in an envelope clearly identifying them as confidential, and stating that they may not be examined without court order. We therefore deny defendant’s request as unnecessary.
[3] It appears that the court could have imposed a criminal justice administration fee pursuant to related provisions of the Government Code that direct a defendant to pay to a city the costs imposed by the county on that city for expenses related to booking the defendant into a county jail. (§§ 29550, subd. (a)(1), 29550.1; People v. Pacheco (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1392, 1399, fn. 6.) Although it appears from the record that defendant here was booked into the county jail, it is unclear whether the county imposed such a fee on Clearlake. Moreover, whenever a criminal justice administration fee is imposed, there must be a showing that the fee imposed does not exceed the actual administrative costs incurred. (§§ 29550, subds. (a)(1), (c), 29550.2, subd. (a); Pacheco at p. 1400.) No such showing was made here, which is an independent reason that affirming the imposition of the fee would be inappropriate.
