P. v. Maynard
Filed 6/1/06 P. v. Maynard CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Butte)
----
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SCOTT ALAN MAYNARD, Defendant and Appellant. |
C049972
(Super. Ct. No. CM016769)
|
For conduct occurring in 1997, defendant Scott Alan Maynard entered a negotiated plea of no contest to sexual battery (Pen. Code, § 243.4)[1] in exchange for dismissal of the remaining count (§ 288, subd. (a) [lewd and lascivious]).
The court sentenced defendant to state prison for the upper term of four years.
Defendant appeals contending the trial court's imposition of certain assessments attached to a sex offender fine were unauthorized as prohibited by the ex post facto laws in that his offense was committed prior to the effective date of the statutes.
The court imposed, inter alia, a $200 sex offender fine (§ 290.3) plus assessments totaling $500, that is, a $200 state penalty assessment (§ 1464), a $140 county penalty assessment (Gov. Code, § 76000), a $100 state court facilities construction penalty (Gov. Code, § 70372; eff. Jan. 1, 2003), a $40 state surcharge (§ 1465.7; eff. Sept. 30, 2002) and a $20 DNA identification fund penalty (Gov. Code, § 76104.6; eff. Nov. 3, 2004). Defendant challenges the construction penalty, surcharge, and identification penalty. The Attorney General concedes. We accept the concession.
In People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, the court concluded that the imposition of the state surcharge (§ 1465.7) and the state court facilities construction penalty (Gov. Code, § 70372) violated ex post facto laws when applied to an offense committed prior to the effective date of the statutes. (People v. High, supra, at pp. 1195-1199; compare People v. Wallace (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 867 [court security fee (§ 1465.8) imposed for a nonpunitive purpose and without punitive effect did not violate ex post facto laws].) The same analysis in High applies to the assessment under Government Code section 76104.6, which identifies such assessment as a penalty to be collected in the same manner as that imposed under section 1464.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified, striking the following assessments attached to the sex offender fine: the $100 state court facilities construction penalty, the $40 state surcharge and the $20 DNA identification fund penalty. The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment accordingly and to forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.
CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.
We concur:
BLEASE , Acting P.J.
RAYE , J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.
Analysis and review provided by Vista Apartment Manager Lawyers.
[1] Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
