People v. Vera-Balam CA1/5

Filed 8/21/23 P. v. Vera-Balam CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A166002 v. RODOLFO VERA-BALAM, (Marin County Super. Ct. No. SC211219A) Defendant and Appellant.

Rodolfo Vera-Balam (appellant) appeals from an order reimposing a $25 administrative screening fee as a term of his reinstated probation. Respondent the People of the State of California agrees that the fee should be vacated. We will vacate the fee and affirm the order as so modified.1

1 In its respondent’s brief, respondent further observed that appellant was entitled to modification of his probation term from five years to four years due to an amendment to Penal Code section 1203.1. Appellant filed a reply brief, agreeing that the probation term should be reduced to four years. On June 8, 2023, respondent filed a motion in this court seeking to withdraw the portion of its brief that advocated for a reduction in the probationary term, on the ground the argument was moot due to a trial court order reducing the probationary term to three years. On June 12, 2023, appellant filed a motion in this court to strike his reply brief for the same reason. We hereby grant both motions. Our affirmance of the trial court’s order at issue in this appeal is not intended to affect any subsequent order of the trial court as to the length of the probationary term.

1

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In January 2020, appellant pleaded guilty to driving with a blood alcohol content over .08 percent and causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (b)) and driving with a license suspended for driving under the influence (Veh. Code, § 14601.2, subd. (a)). He admitted he had two prior convictions for driving under the influence (Veh. Code, § 23566). In February 2020, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on probation for five years, with various terms and conditions. One of the terms was that appellant pay a “$25 administrative screening fee.” (Capitalization omitted.) In September 2021, the probation department filed a notice that appellant violated conditions of his probation by testing positive that month for methamphetamine and alcohol. In October 2021, appellant admitted he violated his probation by consuming alcohol and not leading a law-abiding life. The trial court revoked and reinstated probation on the previously-ordered terms and ordered appellant to serve an additional 60 days in county jail. At a hearing on January 4, 2022, the trial court denied appellant’s motion to reduce the term of his probation from five years to four years and ordered that all previously- ordered terms and conditions of probation (implicitly including the screening fee) remain in effect. Appellant timely appealed from the January 4, 2022 order. II. DISCUSSION Appellant contends the $25 administrative screening fee must be stricken. Respondent agrees, as do we. Although the trial court did not indicate a statutory basis for imposing the fee originally, the parties conclude it must have been imposed pursuant