People v. Valentine CA2/6

Filed 11/16/21 P. v. Valentine 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 OF THE STATE 2d Crim. No. B309720 OF CALIFORNIA, (Super. Ct. No. 2019027104) (Ventura County) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

VINCENT VALENTINE,

Defendant and Appellant.

Vincent Valentine appeals the judgment entered after he pleaded guilty to resisting an officer in the performance of his duties (Pen. Code, § 69, subd. (a)) and admitted suffering a prior strike conviction (Id., §§ 667, subds. (c)(1), (e)(1), 1170.12, subds. (a)(1), (c)(1)). The trial court sentenced him to 32 months in state prison and ordered him to pay a $300 public defender fee pursuant to former Government Code1 section 27712, which was

All further undesignated statutory references are to the 1

Government Code.

repealed effective July 1, 2021. Appellant contends he is entitled to have any unpaid portion of the public defender fee vacated pursuant to recently-enacted section 6111. We agree and shall order the judgment modified accordingly. Otherwise, we affirm. STATEMENT OF FACTS Because appellant pleaded guilty prior to trial, the relevant facts are derived from the reporter’s transcript of the preliminary hearing. On the morning of August 17, 2019, California Department of Parks and Recreation Officer Joshua Pace and his partner observed appellant urinating in public. When the officers contacted appellant, he ran away and swung his backpack at them. Appellant eventually stopped running and sat down. When Officer Pace attempted to handcuff appellant, appellant actively resisted and hit the officer in the face with his left arm. Officer Pace’s partner subsequently subdued appellant with a Taser and he was handcuffed and taken into custody. DISCUSSION Appellant contends he is entitled to have any unpaid portion of the $300 public defender fee imposed under former section 27712 vacated pursuant to recently-enacted section 6111. We agree. In 2020, the Legislature passed Assembly Bill 1869 (2019- 2020 Reg. Sess.) (AB 1869) to “eliminate the range of administrative fees that agencies and courts are authorized to impose to fund elements of the criminal legal system.” (Id., § 2, eff. Sept. 18, 2020, operative July 1, 2021.) Among other things, AB 1869 abrogated the court’s authority to impose and collect a public defender fee under former section 27712 by adding section 6111. (AB 1869, supra, § 11.) As relevant here, section 6111 provides that “[o]n and after July 1, 2021, the unpaid balance of