People v. Banville CA2/6

Filed 7/15/25 P. v. Banville CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B336545 (Super. Ct. Nos. 2018032988, Plaintiff and Respondent, 2019008870, 2020010930.) (Ventura County) v.

LEAH BANVILLE,

Defendant and Appellant.

Leah Banville appeals a judgment entered following her guilty plea to two felony counts of possession for sale of methamphetamine, one felony count of sale of methamphetamine, and one misdemeanor count of resisting a peace officer. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11378, 113791; Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a).) Banville claims that the trial court violated her constitutional right to due process of law by imposing two mandatory drug-related fees for each felony count because she

1 All statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code

unless stated otherwise.

was not advised and did not expressly agree to the fees as part of her plea agreement. We reject this contention and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In three separate prosecutions in 2019 and 2020, the prosecutor charged Banville with felony possession for sale of a controlled substance (methamphetamine), among other charges. On December 26, 2023, Banville entered into a negotiated plea in the three prosecutions. She pleaded guilty to two possession for sale counts, one sale count, and a misdemeanor count of resisting a peace officer. On January 26, 2024, the trial court sentenced Banville to an aggregate term and a hybrid sentence of three years four months. The court awarded Banville 797 days of presentence custody credit, discharged her from custody for time served, and dismissed the remaining counts. The sentencing minute orders as well as the abstract of judgment include imposition of a mandatory $50 criminal laboratory analysis fee for each felony count and a mandatory $150 drug program fee for each felony count ($600 total). (§§ 11372.5, 11372.7.) Neither the written felony disposition statement nor the plea colloquy included express advice of the fees or Banville’s agreement to their imposition. At sentencing, the trial court referred to the probation report and stated: “Each of the terms listed in the [probation] report with respect to the felony jail commitment and the mandatory supervision shall be imposed.” The report recommended that Banville “shall pay” the drug lab fees and drug program fees for each of the three enumerated cases. The section of the report titled “Terms and Conditions of Mandatory Supervision” stated in term No. 16: “The Court finds that the