P. v. Menephee
Filed 10/5/06 P. v. Menephee CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DONALD R. MENEPHEE, Defendant and Appellant. | B185025 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA031526) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Randolph A. Rogers, Judge. Affirmed as modified.
Victoria H. Stafford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
BACKGROUND
The District Attorney of Los Angeles County filed a complaint charging defendant and appellant Donald R. Menephee (defendant) with identity theft (Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (a)[1]), forging and counterfeiting the California state seal (§ 472), two counts of forgery (§ 470, subd. (a)), and failing to register (§ 290, subd. (a)(1)(A)). The complaint alleged that defendant had suffered six prior convictions within the meaning of sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (i) and 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d) and that he served three prior prison terms as set forth in section 667.5, subdivision (b).
Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pleaded nolo contendere to identity theft (§ 530.5, subd. (a)) and to failing to register (§ 290, subd. (a)(1)(A)) and admitted to suffering one prior conviction within the meaning of sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (i) and 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d). The trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term of three years for his identity theft conviction and a consecutive, eight-month term for his failing to register conviction. The trial court doubled those terms under section 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d) for a total of seven years and four months in state prison. The trial court imposed a restitution fine of $1,400 pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (b); a parole revocation fine of $1,400 pursuant to section 1202.45, which it suspended pending successful completion of parole; a $20 security fee pursuant to section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1)[2]; and ordered defendant to provide DNA samples pursuant to section 296. The trial court awarded defendant 71 days of actual custody credit and 34 days of conduct credit. The trial court dismissed the remaining charges.
Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal and a request for a certificate of probable cause pursuant to section 1237.5 alleging ineffective assistance by defense counsel, apparently in coercing him to plead nolo contendere, in advising him to waive time even though defense counsel knew that the district attorney lacked sufficient evidence to proceed, and in refusing to file a requested motion to return property or to suppress evidence pursuant to section 1538.5. Defendant’s certificate request also, apparently, alleged that there was insufficient evidence to support the identity theft and failure to register charges. Defendant’s request for a certificate of probable cause was granted.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on this appeal. After examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief asking this court to independently review the record in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. On January 31, 2006, we gave notice to defendant that counsel had failed to find any arguable issues and that defendant had 30 days within which to submit by brief or letter any grounds of appeal contentions or arguments he wished this court to consider. Defendant did not submit any brief or letter.
We reviewed the record and informed the parties that it appeared that the trial court erred failing to impose a $20 court security fee, pursuant to section 1465.8, for defendant’s conviction for identity theft (§ 530.5) and a $20 court security fee for his conviction for failing to register (§ 290, subd. (a)(1)(A)), giving the parties the opportunity to file supplemental briefs on the issue if they disagreed. Neither party filed a supplemental brief. Accordingly, because the trial court should have imposed a $20 court security fee, pursuant to section 1465.8, for each of defendant’s convictions, we order the abstract of judgment modified to reflect such fees.
DISCUSSION
Section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1) provides, “To ensure and maintain adequate funding for court security, a fee of twenty dollars ($20) shall be imposed on every conviction for a criminal offense, including a traffic offense, except parking offenses as defined in subdivision (i) of Section 1463, involving a violation of a section of the Vehicle Code or any local ordinance adopted pursuant to the Vehicle Code.” Section 1465.8 unambiguously requires a trial court to impose a $20 court security fee for each criminal conviction a defendant suffers. (People v. Schoeb (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 861, 865.) Defendant suffered two convictions for criminal offenses. Accordingly, the trial court should have imposed a $20 court security fee for each of defendant’s two convictions. We are satisfied from our examination of the record that no other arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified to reflect a $20 court security fee for each of defendant’s convictions. The judgment is otherwise affirmed
MOSK, J.
We concur:
TURNER, P. J.
KRIEGLER, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.
[1] All statutory citations are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.
[2] The $20 court security fee is reflected in the reporter’s transcript, but not on the abstract of judgment
