P. v.Bojorquez
Filed 11/19/10 P. v.Bojorquez CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MANUEL L. BOJORQUEZ, Defendant and Appellant. | B220184 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA082609) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Tomson T. Ong, Judge. Affirmed with directions.
Alan Siraco, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Victoria B. Wilson and Roberta L. Davis, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
___________________________________
Manuel Bojorquez entered a Wal-Mart store in Long Beach and removed several items from the store without attempting to pay for them. He pleaded no contest to one count of commercial burglary and admitted a prior strike in return for dismissal of other counts. The trial court sentenced him to six years in prison in conformity with the plea agreement and imposed a $1,200 restitution fund fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4), an equal, stayed parole revocation fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.45), a $30 court security fee (Pen. Code, § 1465.8), and a $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). On these fees the court imposed a $120 penalty assessment under Penal Code section 1464 (section 1464) and Government Code section 76000.
On appeal, defendant contends the $120 penalty assessment was unauthorized. The People concede the point.
Section 1464 prescribes a penalty assessment in the amount of $10 for every $10 (or part of $10) in fines or penalties imposed and collected by the courts for criminal offenses. (§ 1464, subd. (a)(1).) Government Code section 76000 similarly provides for a penalty assessment in the amount of $7 for every $10 (or part of $10) in fines or penalties imposed and collected by the courts for criminal offenses. (Gov. Code, § 76000, subd. (a)(1).)
But the fees imposed in this case under Penal Code sections 1202.4, 1202.45, 1465.8 and Government Code section 70372 are expressly exempted from the penalty assessments prescribed by section 1464 and Government Code section 76000. (Pen Code, §§ 1202.4, subd. (e) [restitution fine not subject to penalty assessments authorized by § 1464 and Gov. Code, § 76000]; 1202.45 [parole revocation fine not subject to
penalty assessments authorized by § 1464 and Gov. Code, § 76000]; 1465.8, subd. (b) [court security fee not subject to penalty assessments authorized by § 1464 and Gov. Code, § 76000]; Gov. Code, § 70373, subd. (b) [court facilities assessment not subject to penalty assessments authorized by § 1464 and Gov. Code, § 76000].) The court’s imposition of the $120 penalty assessment was therefore unauthorized.
Respondent requests that the Abstract of Judgment be corrected to reflect the agreed upon sentence of the disposition at the three-year upper term for second degree commercial burglary (§§ 18, 461, subd. (b)) doubled pursuant to the Three Strikes law.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The $120 penalty assessment is vacated. The trial court is directed to issue an amended abstract of judgment to omit the penalty assessment and to indicate defendant was sentenced to the upper term for commercial burglary.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
CHANEY, J.
We concur:
MALLANO, P. J.
JOHNSON, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
