People v. Morton CA2/6

Filed 7/27/21 P. v. Morton CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B307227 (Super. Ct. No. 2017000623) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

LAVEL JOE MORTON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Lavel Joe Morton appeals from the judgment after he pled no contest to three counts of burglary (Pen. Code,1 § 459). He contends the trial court’s order to pay a $503.87 booking fee (Gov. Code, § 29550.2) must be vacated pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 1869 (2020-2021 Reg. Sess.) (A.B. 1869) (see also Gov. Code, § 6111), and that the order to pay a $900 restitution fine (§ 1202.4) must be stayed pursuant to People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Dueñas).

1 Further unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.

We vacate the order imposing the booking fee, but otherwise affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In January 2017, Morton burglarized several homes in Thousand Oaks. Morton pled no contest to three counts of residential burglary (§ 459) and admitted that he had three prior serious felony (§ 667, subd. (a)) and three prior strike convictions (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i).) The court struck two strike allegations. It also struck the prior serious felony enhancements on counts 2 and 3. It sentenced him to 14 years and four months in state prison (two years for count 1, doubled to four years pursuant to section 667, subdivision (e)(1); 16 months each for counts 2 and 3, doubled to 32 months pursuant to section 667, subdivision (e)(1); plus five years pursuant to section 667, subdivision (a)). The court ordered Morton to pay fines and fees, including a $503.87 booking fee (Gov. Code, § 29550.2) and a $900 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b). DISCUSSION Booking Fee Morton contends that the $503.87 booking fee is no longer enforceable pursuant to A.B. 1869. We agree. (Gov. Code, § 6111, subd. (a).) The unpaid balance of the booking fee is uncollectible, and the civil judgment imposing the fee is unenforceable and must be vacated. (Ibid.) Restitution Fine Morton contends the imposition of a $900 restitution fine (§ 1202.4) without determining his ability to pay violated his state and federal right to due process. (Dueñas, supra, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157.) This contention lacks merit.