People v. Stevenson CA3

Filed 10/23/13 P. v. Stevenson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE, C070950

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 10F5254)

v.

TONY ROEY STEVENSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Tony Roey Stevenson guilty of insurance fraud (Pen. Code, § 550, subd. (b)(1)), unlawful conduct (making a false insurance claim) (Ins. Code, § 1871.4, subd. (a)(1)), and grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)). Imposition of sentence was suspended for five years and defendant was placed on probation for five years on the condition, among others, that he serve 180 days’ incarceration. He was ordered to make restitution to the victim in the amount of $19,438.17 plus a 15 percent administration fee and to pay a $600 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4); a $600 restitution fine, suspended unless probation is revoked (Pen. Code, § 1202.44); a $760

1

fine (Pen. Code, § 672), including penalty assessments; a $120 court operations fee (Pen. Code, § 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)); a $90 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373); a $128 booking fee (Gov. Code, § 29550.2); and a probation supervision fee of $50 per month (Pen. Code, § 1203.1b). On appeal, defendant contends (1) the trial court erred by imposing the booking and probation fees without determining his ability to pay, and (2) alternatively, if the claim is forfeited by his trial counsel’s failure to object to the fees, counsel rendered ineffective assistance. FACTS The facts of defendant’s offenses are not at issue and need not be set forth in this opinion. DISCUSSION I Ability to Pay Fees Defendant contends the trial court erred by imposing the booking and probation fees without determining his ability to pay. He argues the trial court made no express finding of his ability to pay and the evidence is insufficient to support an implied finding of such ability. The Attorney General counters that defendant forfeited his claim by failing to object at the time the fees were imposed. We agree. (People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589 (McCullough).) Penal Code section 1203.1b, subdivision (a) provides, in relevant part: “In any case in which a defendant is convicted of an offense and is the subject of any preplea or presentence investigation and report, whether or not probation supervision is ordered by the court . . . the probation officer . . . shall make a determination of the ability of the defendant to pay all or a portion of the reasonable cost . . . of conducting any presentence investigation and preparing any presentence report made pursuant to Section 1203 . . . .