People v. Jarman CA3

Filed 10/23/13 P. v. Jarman CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C072131, C073038

v. (Super. Ct. No. 11SCR07151)

WILLIAM JARMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant William Jarman asked this court to review the records in this consolidated appeal to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We note the administrative fee of $35 must be reduced to the statutory maximum of $30. We find no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. As modified, the judgment is affirmed. We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the two cases in this appeal. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.) On May 5, 2011, a Glenn County Sheriff’s deputy saw defendant driving a black pickup truck. The deputy recognized defendant and was aware his driver’s license had been suspended. The deputy confirmed defendant’s license status and followed the truck

1

as it proceeded for several blocks and parked in an alley. The deputy contacted defendant who consented to a search of the truck. The search yielded two plastic pill bottles. One bottle contained 0.07 grams of methamphetamine, and the other contained five hydrocodone acetaminophen tablets. Defendant did not have a prescription for the tablets. Defendant was charged with transportation of hydrocodone (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)), transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)), and driving with a suspended license (Veh. Code, § 14601.2). After waiving his right to a jury trial, defendant submitted the foregoing stipulated facts to the trial court, which found him guilty of two charged offenses: transportation of hydrocodone and transportation of methamphetamine. The stipulation of facts did not contain evidence of driving with a suspended license, and the trial court found defendant not guilty of that offense. Defendant was granted Proposition 36 probation for three years. He was ordered to pay a $400 fine (Pen. Code,1 § 1202.4, subd. (a)(2)) plus penalty assessments, a $240 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $240 restitution fine suspended unless probation is revoked (§ 1202.44), a $50 laboratory analysis fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5, subd. (a)), a $100 drug program fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.7), an $80 court security fee (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), a $60 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), a $25 own recognizance release processing fee (§ 1463.07), and supervision and drug testing fees. Although the trial court did not orally pronounce an administrative fee, the probation commitment order directs defendant to pay a $35 administrative fee. (§ 1205, subd. (d)(1).) Defendant timely appealed from this order, and the appeal was assigned case No. C072131.