P. v. Moon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 6/14/13  P. v. Moon 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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,               v.   ALAN JAMES MOON,                           Defendant and Appellant.

C071583   (Super. Ct. No. CM035929)

 

 

            In exchange
for a stipulated sentence, defendant Alan James Moon pleaded no contest to
making criminal threats and admitted
previously serving a prison term.

            Defendant’s
only contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in ordering him to pay
a $286 supplemental probation report fee because there is insufficient evidence
to support a finding he had the ability to pay that fee.

            Defendant
claims that because Penal Code section 1203.1b is predicated on a defendant’s
ability to pay and there was no evidence before the trial court that he had
such ability, the fees were improperly imposed. 
The People respond that defendant forfeited this issue by not objecting
in the trial court to imposition of the fee. 
The People have the better argument.

            In a recent
decision, the California Supreme Court ruled that “a defendant who fails to
contest the booking fee when the court imposes it forfeits the right to
challenge it on appeal.”  (>People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th
589, 591.)  Here, defendant failed to
contest the booking fee when it was imposed by the trial court.  Accordingly, he has forfeited the right to challenge
that fee on appeal.

            We have,
however, identified a clerical error on the abstract of judgment that requires
correction:  the abstract of judgment
omits the court’s order that defendant pay a $286 supplemental probation report
fee.  We will direct the trial court to
correct this clerical error.

DISPOSITION

            The
judgment is affirmed.  The trial court is
directed to correct the abstract of judgment to include the court’s order that
defendant pay a $286 supplemental probation report fee.  The trial court shall forward a certified
copy of the corrected abstract of judgment to the Director of the California href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

 

 

 

                                                                                                    RAYE                     , P. J.

 

 

 

We concur:

 

 

 

            MURRAY                  ,
J.

 

 

 

            HOCH                        , J.