People v. Kenville CA6

Filed 10/28/14 P. v. Kenville CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H039418 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. F1241773)

v.

WILLIAM PAUL KENVILLE,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant William Paul Kenville pleaded nolo contendere to possession of more than 28.5 grams of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (c)) and transportation and distribution of marijuana (id., § 11360, subd. (a)). The trial court placed him on probation for a period of three years, subject to various terms and conditions. He was also ordered to pay certain fines and fees. On appeal, defendant argues reversal is necessary, because the court failed to specify the base amount of the drug program fee and did not state the statutory bases for the fee and penalty assessments. He also argues one of his probation conditions is unconstitutionally vague due to its lack of a knowledge requirement. We reverse the order granting probation and remand to the trial court so that it may specify the amount of the drug program fee and penalty assessment and separately state the appropriate statutory bases for each.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 On February 22, 2012, a complaint was filed charging defendant with possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359; count 1) and transportation and distribution of marijuana (id., § 11360, subd. (a); count 2). On November 5, 2012, count 1 was amended to possession of more than 28.5 grams of marijuana (id., § 11357, subd. (c)). Defendant pleaded nolo contendere to both charges. On January 28, 2013, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for a period of three years.2 Based on a negotiated disposition, defendant was ordered to serve one year in county jail, with 11 months suspended and the remaining 30 days to be completed at a sheriff’s weekend work program. The court also imposed various conditions of probation, including that defendant was “not to possess or use illegal drugs or illegal controlled substances or go anywhere that he knows that illegal drugs or non prescribed controlled substances are used or sold.” Defendant was ordered to pay various fines and fees, including a “drug program fee plus a $450.00, penalty assessment.” Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. DISCUSSION 1. Drug Program Fee Defendant argues reversal is necessary, because the court failed to state the exact amount imposed for the drug program fee and did not specify the statutory bases for the fee and its applicable penalty assessments. We agree.