P. v. Texas CA1/4

Filed 6/26/13 P. v. Texas CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A137503 v. SHAWN PATRICK TEXAS, (Lake County Super. Ct. No. CR930314) Defendant and Appellant.

Shawn Patrick Texas appeals from a judgment upon his plea of no contest to malicious destruction of property (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a)). He contends that the trial court erroneously imposed a $90 booking fee without finding that he had the ability to pay the fee. We affirm. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On August 22, 2012, a complaint was filed charging defendant with stalking while subject to a restraining order (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (b)) and malicious destruction of property. The charges stemmed from defendant’s arrest for violating a restraining order and breaking the rear door window of a patrol car. On November 26, 2012, the court placed defendant on probation for a period of three years on conditions including that he serve 120 days in the county jail, pay a restitution fine of $720, pay a court operations assessment of $40, a criminal conviction assessment of $30, and a criminal justice

1

administrative fee of $90.1 Defendant waived a reading of the amount and statutory authority for the fines which were ordered imposed, and expressly agreed to imposition of each of the conditions of probation. II. DISCUSSION Defendant contends that the trial court erred in imposing the $90 criminal justice administrative fee (booking fee) without finding that he had the ability to pay the fine.2 The People argue that defendant waived the claim because he failed to object to imposition of the fine in the trial court. The issue was recently addressed by our Supreme Court in People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589 (McCullough). The Court held that “because a court’s imposition of a booking fee is confined to factual determinations, a defendant who fails to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence at the proceeding when the fee is imposed may not raise the challenge on appeal.” (Id. at p. 597.) The court reasoned that its review of statutes in which the Legislature has required a court to determine if a defendant is able to pay a fee indicated “that the Legislature considers the financial burden of the booking fee to be de minimis and has interposed no procedural safeguards or guidelines for its imposition. In this context, the rationale for forfeiture is particularly strong.” (Id. at p. 599.) Thus, the court concluded: “Given that imposition of a fee is of much less moment than imposition of sentence, and that the goals advanced by judicial forfeiture apply equally here, we see no reason to conclude that the rule permitting challenges made to the sufficiency of the