P. v. Brim
A jury found defendant and appellant Darnell Brim (defendant) guilty of possession of cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11351.5) and possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (a)(1)[1]). The jury found true the allegation that defendant was personally armed with a firearm in the commission of those offenses. ( 12022, subd. (c).) Defendant waived his right to a jury trial on the allegations that he suffered two prior convictions within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (a) and that he suffered a prior juvenile adjudication within the meaning of the Three Strikes law ( 667, subds. (b)-(i) & 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). The trial court found true the Health and Safety Code allegation, but found insufficient evidence to support the allegation under the Three Strikes law. The trial court sentenced defendant to 14 years in state prison.
On appeal, defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for possession of cocaine base for sale and his sentence enhancement for being armed with a firearm, the trial court violated his due process rights and right to present witnesses when it denied his motion to disclose the identity of a confidential informant while allowing prosecution witnesses to testify about events to which the confidential informant was a percipient witness, the prosecution failed to disclose and effectively destroyed exculpatory evidence in violation of his due process rights and right to confrontation, he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and the cumulative effect of the errors requires reversal. Respondent contends that the record must be corrected to reflect the imposition of a mandatory $50 criminal laboratory analysis fee pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11372.5, subdivision (a); a mandatory $50 penalty pursuant to section 1464, subdivision (a); and a mandatory $35 penalty pursuant to Government Code section 76000, subdivision (a), that the trial court omitted from defendants sentence. Respondent also contends that the trial court erred in failing to impose a $200 state court construction penalty pursuant to Government Code section 70372, subdivision (a) on defendants $400 restitution fine ( 1202.4, subd. (b)(1)) and a stayed $200 state court construction penalty pursuant to Government Code section 70372, subdivision (a) on defendants $400 parole revocation restitution fine ( 1202.45).
We asked the parties to submit supplemental briefs addressing the issue of whether the trial court erred in failing to impose a 20 percent $10 state surcharge on any $50 criminal laboratory analysis fee pursuant to section 1465.7, subdivision (a); a $25 state court construction penalty on any criminal laboratory analysis fee pursuant to Government Code section 70372, subdivision (a); a $25 state court construction penalty on any $50 section 1464 penalty assessment pursuant to Government Code section 70372, subd. (a); and a $17.50 state court construction penalty on any Government Code section 76000, subdivision (a) penalty pursuant to Government Code section 70372, subdivision (a). We also asked the parties to address whether the trial court erred when it stayed $200 of the $400 restitution fine ( 1202.4, subd. (b)(1)), when it stayed $200 of the $400 parole revocation restitution fine ( 1202.45), and when it imposed a $20 court security fine under section 1465.8 on only one of defendants two convictions.
Court affirm the judgment and order the abstract of judgment modified to include a $50 criminal laboratory analysis fee pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11372.5, subdivision (a); a $50 penalty pursuant to section 1464, subdivision (a); a $35 penalty pursuant to Government Code section 76000, subdivision (a); state court construction penalties totaling $467.50 pursuant to Government Code section 70372, subdivision (a), of which $467.50 total $200 is stayed; and $40 in court security fines. The abstract of judgment also shall reflect a fully imposed $400 restitution fine and a fully stayed $400 parole revocation restitution fine.
Comments on P. v. Brim