P. v. Garcia CA3

Filed 6/27/13 P. v. Garcia CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C070168

v. (Super. Ct. No. CM033173)

LILY LETICIA GARCIA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Lily Leticia Garcia pled no contest to possession of a controlled substance (count 6; Health & Saf. Code, § 11351), possession of marijuana for sale (count 8; Health & Saf. Code, § 11359), and misdemeanor child endangerment (count 11; Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (b))1 in return for dismissal of all remaining counts with Harvey waivers.2

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754. The dismissed charges included three counts of sale/transportation/offer to sell a controlled substance (Oxycontin) (counts 1, 3, & 5; Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)), two counts of sale or transportation of marijuana (counts 2 & 4; Health & Saf. Code, § 11360, subd. (a)), one count of

1

After obtaining a probation report, which recommended among other things that defendant pay the cost of a presentence investigation report in the amount of $736 (§ 1203.1b), the trial court denied probation and sentenced defendant to serve four years eight months in county jail (§ 1170, subd. (h) -- the upper term of four years on count 6 plus eight months consecutive on count 8, with a six-month concurrent term on count 11). The court imposed various fines and fees, including the recommended fee for the presentence investigation report. On appeal, defendant contends only that the fee for the presentence investigation report must be stricken because the trial court did not find she had the ability to pay it. We conclude the contention is forfeited because defendant did not object to the fee. Therefore, we affirm. FACTS The parties stipulated, and the trial court agreed, to use the probation report as the factual basis for defendant’s plea. On October 28, 2010, Butte (County) Interagency Narcotics Task Force agents, who had previously purchased marijuana and Oxycontin from defendant at her residence, executed a search warrant there. They found approximately 25 pounds of marijuana, evidence of marijuana cultivation, marijuana packaged for sale, digital scales, indicia of prescription narcotics sales, 2,000 prescription pills, a police scanner, and $158,839 in United States currency. Defendant’s two children, aged four and five, had access to the marijuana and narcotics inside the residence, the greater part of which was in the master bedroom. As mentioned, the probation report recommended that defendant pay the $736 cost of the presentence investigation report pursuant to section 1203.1b. The report opined