PEOPLE v. PACHECO
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html ><br /> <head><br /> <title>PEOPLE v</title><br /> </head><br /> <body><br /> <div><br /> <br/><b>PEOPLE<br /> v. PACHECO</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Filed 8/31/10<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>CERTIFIED<br /> FOR PUBLICATION<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>IN<br /> THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>SIXTH<br /> APPELLATE DISTRICT<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0<br /> ><br /> <tr ><br /> <td width=319 valign=top ><br /> <br/>THE PEOPLE,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Plaintiff and<br /> Respondent,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> v.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>SEGUIN<br /> MARTI PACHECO,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Defendant and<br /> Appellant.<br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> <td width=319 valign=top ><br /> <br/> <br /> H034454<br /> <br/> (Santa Clara<br /> County<br /> <br/> Super.Ct.No. CC812286)<br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </table><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Defendant<br /> Seguin Marti Pacheco was convicted by plea of one count of welfare fraud in<br /> violation of Welfare and Institutions Code section 10980, subdivision<br /> (c)(2). The court suspended the<br /> imposition of sentence and placed Pacheco on formal probation for a period of three<br /> years subject to various conditions. The<br /> court also imposed various fines and fees. <br /> On appeal, Pacheco challenges the order directing him to pay $100 in<br /> attorney fees under Penal Code section 987.8,[1] and the<br /> court's imposition of a $259.50 criminal justice administration fee under<br /> either Government Code section 29550, subdivision (c) or Government Code<br /> section 29550.2, and a $64 per month probation fee under section 1203.1b,<br /> subdivision (a). His challenge to all<br /> three fines or fees is based on the court having failed to determine his<br /> ability to pay them. Pacheco also<br /> challenges a $30 fee appearing in the minute order that the court did not<br /> orally pronounce and he finally contends that the $20 court security fee should<br /> not have been imposed as a probation condition. <br /> Finding merit in Pacheco's claims, we modify the judgment and remand to the<br /> trial court with directions.<br /> <br/>STATEMENT OF THE CASE<br /> <br/> The record<br /> does not contain the factual basis of the crime. But the felony complaint alleged that Pacheco<br /> and Linda Martinez committed â€