P. v. Vasquez
Defendant Joe Ramos Vasquez, who is required to register as a sex offender because of a prior conviction, was convicted by plea of failing to notify police of his new address in violation of Penal Code section 290.013, subdivision (a), with an admitted strike prior and two prison priors.[1] (§§ 667.5, subd. (b)-(i) & 1170.12.) After the court denied his Romero[2] motion, he was sentenced to 32 months in prison. Because he was arrested by police from the City of San Jose, the court, at sentencing and without objection, imposed a booking fee of $129.75 under Government Code section 29550.1. This section, unlike Government Code sections 29550 and 29550.2, does not contain a provision concerning a defendant's ability to pay. The court also, without objection, awarded a total of 615 days of pre-sentence credit, of which 204 days were conduct credit calculated under former code section 4019, subdivision (f).[3]
On appeal, Vasquez challenges the booking fee under principles of equal protection, contending that an ability-to-pay provision should be read into Government Code section 29550.1 and that the record contains insufficient evidence of his ability to pay. He alternatively claims ineffective assistance of counsel for his attorney's failure to have objected to the booking fee below. Through supplemental briefing, he also contends on equal protection grounds that he is entitled to additional conduct credit based on legislative changes to section 4019, expressly operative to crimes committed on or after October 1, 2011. We reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Vasquez