The People v. Hampton CA3

Filed 9/12/13 P. v. Hampton CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C071235

v. (Super. Ct. No. 12F02618)

ROY LEE HAMPTON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Roy Lee Hampton pleaded no contest to failing to register as a sex offender. (Pen. Code, § 290.018, subd. (b).)1 The trial court placed him on probation for five years and imposed various terms and conditions of probation, including that defendant obey all laws, submit to warrantless search and seizure, and pay a $25 urinalysis testing fee.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

Defendant now contends the trial court erred in imposing the $25 urinalysis testing fee as a condition of probation because (1) there is no order for urinalysis testing upon which the urinalysis testing fee could be based; (2) urinalysis testing has no relationship to defendant’s conviction or his criminal history; and (3) payment of the fee without justification would have no rehabilitative effect. The Attorney General responds that the probation condition requiring defendant to submit to warrantless searches and seizures of his person would require defendant to provide a urine sample upon request. Noting the broad discretion of the trial court to impose conditions that foster rehabilitation and protect public safety, the Attorney General argues urinalysis testing and the urinalysis testing fee are reasonably related to deterrence of future criminality, protection of the public, and effective probation supervision. We conclude (1) the trial court ordered defendant to submit to urinalysis testing as a condition of probation, and defendant and his counsel understood this because defense counsel expressly objected to “the urinalysis test” at sentencing; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering urinalysis testing as a condition of probation, because such testing regulates criminal conduct and relates to the fundamental probation condition that defendant obey all laws; and (3) the urinalysis testing condition serves a rehabilitative purpose and is reasonably related to defendant’s future criminality. Nonetheless, we have identified a different problem with the trial court’s imposition of the urinalysis testing fee and court facility fee as conditions of probation. Because those fees are collateral to the offense and cannot be made a condition of probation, we will modify the order granting probation to clarify that payment of those