People v. Talibdeen

California Court of Appeal Oct 25, 2000 No. B130967Published

Before: Weisman

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that mandatory state and county penalty assessments must be imposed on criminal fines, and a trial court's failure to do so results in an unauthorized sentence that may be corrected on appeal despite the lack of a trial-level objection.

Issues

Whether the failure to impose mandatory state and county penalty assessments at sentencing constitutes a waivable error.
Whether a reviewing court may order the imposition of mandatory penalty assessments that were omitted by the trial court.

Disposition. Affirmed as modified.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is clear that under Penal Code section 1464 a trial court has a mandatory duty to levy and impose a state penalty assessment”

“we determine that the state and county penalty assessments are mandatory and that no waiver occurred”

“a failure to impose a mandatory fine at trial constituted a legally unauthorized sentence which is correctable on appeal”

97 Cal.Rptr.2d 330 (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1055 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

Naasir A. TALIBDEEN, Defendant and Appellant.

No. B130967. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Five.

June 26, 2000. Rehearing Denied July 12, 2000. Review Granted October 25, 2000. [331] Laura P. Gordon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, David P. Druliner, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Carol Wendelin Pollack, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, David A. Voet, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Certified for Partial Publication.[*]

WEISMAN, J.[**]

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant Naasir A. Talibdeen appeals from a judgment of conviction following his guilty plea to possession of cocaine (Health & Saf.Code, § 11350, subd. (a)), and his admission that he suffered one prior serious or violent felony conviction for first degree burglary (Pen.Code, § 459) which was alleged as a "strike" under the Three Strikes law (Pen.Code, §§ 667, subds.(b)(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). Defendant was sentenced to state prison for a total of 32 months, consisting of a low term of 16 months which was doubled to 32 months under the Three Strikes law. Defendant was also ordered to pay a $50 laboratory analysis fee, a $200 restitution fine, and a $200 parole revocation fine. Defendant contends that he was denied his due process right to a fair hearing before an impartial judge because of repeated instances of judicial misconduct that occurred at his suppression hearing pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5. The Attorney General contends that the judgment must be modified to impose a $50 state penalty assessment under Penal Code section 1464 and a $35 county penalty assessment under Government Code section 76000. We order the judgment modified to reflect the imposition of these penalty assessments and affirm the judgment in all other respects.

People v. Talibdeen

AI Brief

I. INTRODUCTION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

III. DISCUSSION

IV. DISPOSITION

NOTES

AI Brief