People v. Brewer CA1/5

Filed 2/28/14 P. v. Brewer CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A138383 v. KENNETH ROB BREWER, (Napa County Super. Ct. No. CR163879) Defendant and Appellant.

Kenneth Rob Brewer appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence imposed after he entered a no contest plea to multiple felony counts. His appellate challenge distills to a meritless dispute about a $35 administrative fee and $13 drug testing fee mentioned on a form contained in the record. We will affirm the judgment. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In January 2013, Brewer entered a plea of no contest to four felony counts: possession for sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351); possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359); cultivation of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11358); and possession of ammunition by a felon (Pen. Code, § 30305, subd. (a)). He also admitted that he had two prior convictions related to controlled substances (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (a)) and possessed excess cocaine for sale (Pen. Code, § 1203.073, subd. (b)). Brewer was initially released on his own recognizance, on the condition that he would be sentenced up to the maximum of eight years in custody and three years four months of mandatory supervision if he perpetrated a new offense. (See Cal. Rules of

1

Court, rule 4.412.) He was later returned to custody after he was caught taping a bindle of cocaine to the underside of a restaurant table. At the sentencing hearing on March 18, 2013, Brewer was sentenced to five years in local custody and four years on mandatory supervision. No error is claimed as to this aspect of his sentence. The court also orally imposed the following fines and fees: a $160 mandatory court security fee; a $1,120 restitution fine; a $120 criminal conviction assessment; a $205 laboratory analysis fee as to each of counts one through three (for a total of $615); and a $13 drug testing fee, by stating that “Number 31 [of the mandatory supervision terms and conditions in the probation department’s presentence report] is imposed.” (See Pen. Code, § 1202.4; Govt. Code, § 70373; Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5; Pen. Code, § 1203.1ab.)1 The court waived other fees based on Brewer’s inability to pay them. The minute order from the sentencing hearing records all of these fines and fees, either expressly or by reference to the number of the corresponding mandatory supervision condition. In addition, the minute order states in bold-face type: “Matter is referred to Post Court Services.” Also in the record is a document entitled “Napa County Superior Court [¶] Promise to Appear/CSB Referral,” dated March 21, 2013, ostensibly initialed by the court clerk (CSB Form). According to this document, “CSB” refers to the California Service Bureau, and the purpose is to establish an installment payment plan for the fines and fees imposed by the court. The CSB Form lists: a court operations assessment of $160; a “fine” of $1,855 (without explicitly mentioning the $1,120 restitution fine, $120 criminal conviction assessment, or $615 for the three lab analysis fees); and the drug testing fee of $13. In addition, the CSB Form imposes an administrative fee, not mentioned orally by the court, in the amount of $35.