People v. Trujillo CA6

Filed 3/6/15 P. v. Trujillo CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, H040865 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1360776)

v.

MICHAEL JAMES TRUJILLO,

Defendant and Appellant.

I. INTRODUCTION Defendant Michael James Trujillo pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), misdemeanor possession of burglar’s tools (Pen. Code, § 466),1 and misdemeanor possession of controlled substance paraphernalia (former Health & Saf. Code, § 11364.1). He also admitted that he had served four prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court found that defendant had one prior strike (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). After granting defendant’s Romero motion,2 the court sentenced defendant to two years in prison and ordered him to pay a restitution fine of $240 plus an administrative fee of 10 percent for a total of $264.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 2 People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.

On appeal, defendant contends that the 10 percent administrative fee, or $24, is unauthorized and should be stricken. For reasons that we will explain, we will affirm the judgment but order the correction of clerical errors in the sentencing minutes and the abstract of judgment. II. BACKGROUND In 2013, defendant was charged by complaint with possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a); count 1), possession of burglar’s tools (§ 466; count 2, a misdemeanor), and possession of controlled substance paraphernalia (former Health & Saf. Code, § 11364.1; count 3, a misdemeanor). The complaint further alleged that he had a prior strike (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12), and that he had served four prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). In January 2014, defendant pleaded no contest to all three counts and admitted that he had served four prior prison terms. Defendant waived his right to a jury trial on the issue of whether he had a prior strike. On March 14, 2014, the trial court found that defendant had a prior conviction that qualified as a strike. Upon defendant’s oral Romero motion, the court struck the strike. The court sentenced defendant to two years in prison for the felony count and imposed and then stayed the one-year punishment for each of his four prison priors. The court ordered concurrent 180-day terms for the misdemeanor counts. The court also ordered defendant to pay various amounts, including a restitution fine of $240 plus an administrative fee of 10 percent for a total of $264. The minutes from the sentencing hearing and the abstract of judgment, however, reflect a total restitution fine of $254. III. DISCUSSION Defendant contends that the 10 percent administrative fee, or $24, added by the trial court to the restitution fine is unauthorized when a defendant, such as him, is sentenced to prison. He argues that when a defendant is placed on probation and ordered to pay a restitution fine as a condition of probation, the county is entitled to recover its