People v. Knowles CA3

Filed 10/18/13 P. v. Knowles CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C072043

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 12F00496)

v.

RICHARD MELVILLE KNOWLES,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Richard Melville Knowles pleaded no contest to possession of heroin for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351) and admitted a prior strike. The trial court imposed a stipulated four-year state prison term. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in imposing a booking fee and drug program fee without finding he had the ability to pay. We shall modify the booking fee to reflect the correct statutory source for the fee and affirm the judgment as modified. BACKGROUND Elk Grove police officers conducted a vehicle stop for a failed middle brake light and a license plate violation. Defendant was the driver; his girlfriend, the car‟s owner, was a passenger. After learning defendant was on parole, officers conducted a search of

1

the car, which discovered 5.18 grams of heroin in a cylinder attached to a keychain and a plastic bag containing 2.3 grams of marijuana. The officers arrested defendant and booked him into Sacramento County Main Jail. The probation report recommended defendant pay a $340.01 main jail booking fee pursuant to Government Code section 29550.2.1 At sentencing, the trial court ordered defendant “to pay a $340.01 main jail booking fee pursuant to Section 29550.2 of the Government Code” and “a drug program fee of $150 plus $130 in penalties and assessments.” Defendant did not object to either fee. DISCUSSION I Defendant contends the trial court erred in imposing the booking fee because it did not find he had an ability to pay it. We disagree. A. Before addressing defendant‟s contention, we address an initial error by the trial court regarding the booking fee. The statute relied on by the trial court, section 29550.2, allows the county to recover the costs of booking from any convicted defendant who was arrested “by any governmental entity not specified in Section 29550 or 29550.1 . . . .” (§ 29550.2, subd. (a).) Section 29550, subdivision (a)(1) provides in pertinent part: “Subject to subdivision (d) of Section 29551, a county may impose a fee upon a city, special district, school district, community college district, college, or university for reimbursement of county expenses incurred with respect to the booking or other processing of persons arrested by an employee of that city, special district, school district, community college