People v. Contreras CA5

Filed 5/9/22 P. v. Contreras 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F082886 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F20907020) v.

MARK LEE CONTRERAS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Francine Zepeda, Judge. Rex Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez and Amanda D. Cary, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P. J., Franson, J. and Meehan, J.

Defendant Mark Lee Contreras pled no contest to physically assaulting his wife and was placed on probation. On appeal, defendant contends the probation supervision and report fees imposed by the trial court must be vacated pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 1869 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill 1869). We order the judgment modified, but affirm in all other respects. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 On October 15, 2020, the Fresno County District Attorney filed a complaint charging defendant with corporal injury to a spouse (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a); count 1),2 and dissuading a witness from reporting a crime (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1); count 2). Defendant pled no contest to count 1 and, in exchange, the People dismissed count 2. On June 4, 2021, the trial court placed defendant on formal probation for three years and ordered him to pay an annual $360 probation supervision fee and a $296 probation report fee pursuant to former section 1203.1b. On June 7, 2021, defendant filed an appeal. DISCUSSION On appeal, defendant contends he is entitled to relief from the unpaid portions of the probation supervision and report fees imposed under former section 1203.1b. The People concede and we agree. Effective July 1, 2021, Assembly Bill 1869 “eliminate[d] the range of administrative fees that agencies and courts are authorized to impose to fund elements of the criminal legal system.” (People v. Clark (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 248, 259; Stats. 2020, ch. 92, § 2.) Among other things, Assembly Bill 1869 abrogated the court’s