People v. Ozuna CA5

California Court of Appeal Aug 12, 2016 No. F071753Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court erred in imposing a laboratory fee and narcotics offender registration requirement in a case where the defendant was not convicted of a drug offense.

Issues

Did the trial court err by imposing a $50 laboratory fee in a case where the defendant was not convicted of a drug offense?
Did the trial court err by ordering the defendant to register as a narcotics offender in a case where the defendant was not convicted of a drug offense?

Disposition. Modified and affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Since Ozuna was not convicted of a drug offense in case No. F15900433, the court’s orders in that case requiring Ozuna to pay a $50 laboratory fee and to register pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11590 are unauthorized sentences”

Filed 8/12/16 P. v. Ozuna CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F071753 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. F15900433 & v. F13912225)

JON WOLFGANG OZUNA, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. James A. Kelley, Judge. William D. Farber, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel B. Bernstein and Alice Su, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Peña, J.

In case No. F13912225, appellant Jon Wolfgang Ozuna pled no contest to cultivation of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11358), and he admitted a prior prison term enhancement (Pen. Code, § 667.5)1 and allegations that he had a prior strike within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (§ 667, subd. (b)-(i)). In case No. F15900433, Ozuna pled no contest to second degree burglary (§§ 459, 460, subd. (b)), and he admitted two prior prison term enhancements and allegations that he had a prior conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law. On appeal, Ozuna contends the trial court erred in case No. F15900433 by imposing a $50 laboratory fee in that case and ordering him to register as a narcotics offender. We find merit to Ozuna’s contention and modify the judgment accordingly. In all other respects, we affirm. FACTS On July 3, 2013, at approximately 12:44 p.m., Sanger Police Officer Abraham Ruiz discovered 17 marijuana plants growing in Ozuna’s backyard. Ozuna admitted that the plants were his and that he did not have a “marijuana card” (case No. F13912225). On January 9, 2015, at approximately 10:15 a.m., Sanger police officers responded to a vacant warehouse on a call of a possible burglary. One of the officers arrested Justin Torres at the warehouse. Ozuna was arrested in a nearby shopping center. During a postarrest interview, Ozuna admitted having been in the warehouse (case No. F15900433). On November 20, 2014, the Fresno County District Attorney filed an amended information in case No. F13912225 charging Ozuna with cultivation of marijuana, a prior prison term enhancement (§ 667.5 subd. (b)) and with having a prior conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). That same day Ozuna pled no contest to cultivation of marijuana and admitted the other allegations.

People v. Ozuna CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief