People v. Rumzie CA6

Filed 11/9/21 P. v. Rumzie CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, H047970 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1886749)

v.

JOHN THOMAS RUMZIE,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant John Thomas Rumzie pleaded no contest to one count of possession of child pornography (Pen. Code, § 311.11, subd. (a)1). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Rumzie on felony probation for three years with conditions. On appeal, Rumzie asserts this court should remand the matter to the trial court to reduce his probationary term under Assembly Bill No. 1950 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill 1950) and should vacate pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 1869 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill 1869) certain fees imposed at his sentencing. We agree, reverse the probation order, and remand with instructions. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The facts of Rumzie’s offense are irrelevant to the issues on appeal.

1 Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.

In March 2018, the Santa Clara County County District Attorney filed a complaint charging Rumzie with one count of possession or control of matter depicting a person under the age of 18 engaging in or simulating sexual conduct. (§ 311.11, subd. (a).) On March 19, 2019, Rumzie pleaded no contest to the sole count of the complaint. On December 20, 2019, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Rumzie on three years of formal probation with conditions, including a term of 364 days in the county jail (30 days to be served in custody and the balance to be served on electronic monitoring). With respect to fines and fees, the trial court imposed a restitution fine of $300 with a 10 percent administrative fee (§ 1202.4) and an additional suspended probation revocation restitution fine of $300 (§ 1202.44), a $300 fine and penalty assessment (§ 290.3), a court security fee of $40 (§ 1465.8), a conviction assessment of $30 (Gov. Code, § 70373), a “booking fee” of $259.50 (Gov. Code, § 29550.2), a pre-sentence investigation fee not to exceed $450 (§ 1203.1b), and probation supervision costs of not more than $110 per month (§ 1203.1b).2 Rumzie has appealed the trial court’s December 20, 2019 probation order on two grounds. II. DISCUSSION A. Term of Probation At the time of Rumzie’s sentencing in December 2019, the trial court had the authority to impose a three-year probationary term. (Former § 1203.1, subd. (a).) On January 1, 2021, Assembly Bill 1950 took effect and reduced the maximum probationary term for most felony offenses to two years. (Stats. 2020, ch. 328, § 2; § 1203.1, subds. (a), (m); People v. Quinn (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 874, 879 (Quinn).) Section 1203.1, subdivision (a), now states in relevant part: “The court, or judge thereof, in the order granting probation, may suspend the imposing or the execution of the sentence and may direct that the suspension may continue for a period of time not exceeding two years, and