P. v. Bowman
Appellant Kevin Alan Bowman was convicted after jury trial of transporting methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)) and possessing drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364, a misdemeanor). He pled guilty to using a false license plate (Veh. Code, § 4462.5, a misdemeanor) and operating a vehicle with no license plate (Veh. Code, § 5200, an infraction). Other counts and enhancement allegations not relevant to this appeal were dismissed or found not true. He was sentenced to the upper term of four years in prison on the felony count, with concurrent terms on the misdemeanors. The court imposed various fees and fines, including four assessments totaling $125 pursuant to Government Code section 70373.
Appellant contends that testimony establishing the nature of the controlled substance was admitted in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses. He also asserts, and respondent concedes, that the assessments imposed pursuant to Government Code section 70373 are impermissible because his crimes were committed prior to the statute’s effective date.
In March 2010, this court issued a partially published opinion rejecting appellant’s Sixth Amendment claim and accepting respondent’s concession pertaining to the challenged assessments. At that time, the most recent decisions by the Supreme Courts of the United States and the State of California addressing the Sixth Amendment issue were Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (2009) 557 U.S. 305 (Melendez-Diaz) and People v. Geier (2007) 41 Cal.4th 555 (Geier). We modified the judgment to omit the challenged fines and affirmed the judgment as modified.
The California Supreme Court granted review. (See People v. Bowman (2010) formerly published at 182 Cal.App.4th 1616, depub. Jun. 9, 2010, upon grant of review.) On May 22, 2013, it transferred the case back to this court with instructions to reconsider our original opinion in light of People v. Lopez (2012) 55 Cal.4th 569 (Lopez), People v. Dungo (2012) 55 Cal.4th 608 (Dungo), People v. Rutterschmidt (2012) 55 Cal.4th 650 (Rutterschmidt) and Williams v. Illinois (2012) 567 U.S. __ [132 S.Ct. 2221] (Williams). Having conducted the required reconsideration, we again reject appellant’s Sixth Amendment claim but conclude that the challenged assessments were properly imposed. The judgment will be affirmed.
Comments on P. v. Bowman