P. v. Reed



Filed 3/9/11 P. v. Reed CA2/7



NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LAWRENCE REED, Defendant and Appellant.

B224176 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. BA363782 and YA071104)

APPEAL from judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Rand S. Rubin, Judge. Affirmed as modified.
Carlo Andreani, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Chung L. Mar and Erika D. Jackson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________

INTRODUCTION

Defendant Lawrence Reed appeals from the judgments entered after he pled guilty to sale, transportation, or offer to sell a controlled substance, to wit, cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)) in case number BA363782 and admitted a probation violation in case number YA071104, involving a conviction for infliction of corporal injury upon a spouse or cohabitant (Pen. Code § 273.5, subd. (a)).[1] Defendant was sentenced to state prison in case number BA363782 for a total of four years, to be served concurrently with his previously imposed and suspended four-year sentence in case number YA071104.
Defendant challenges the propriety of the court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373) and court security fee (Pen. Code, § 1465.8) imposed in case number YA071104. He also challenges the drug program fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.7, subd. (a)) imposed in case number BA363782, as well as the requirement that he register as a narcotics offender (id, § 11590, subd. (a)). We modify the judgment in both cases and affirm them as modified.

DISCUSSION

Court Security Fee and Court Facilities Assessment
Defendant contends that the trial court erred in imposing a $30 court security fee instead of a $20 fee, and that it imposed an unauthorized $30 court facilities assessment in case number YA071104. We agree.
On December 4, 2008, defendant was placed on probation in case number YA071104. Probation was revoked on March 11, 2010, and defendant was sentenced to state prison and ordered to pay a $30 court security fee and a $30 court facilities assessment.
Penal Code section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1), requires the imposition of a court security fee â€