Filed 4/13/17 P. v. Rivero CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT


THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ARMANDO RIVERO,

Defendant and Appellant.
H043226
(Santa Clara County
Super. Ct. No. C1520126)

On appeal from his criminal conviction, defendant Armando Rivero contends that the trial court erred in imposing a $129.75 jail booking fee (booking fee). As set forth below, we find no error and affirm the judgment of conviction.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Defendant pleaded no contest to theft or unauthorized use of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for a period of three years. The trial court ordered defendant to pay various fines and fees. One of the fees was a $129.75 booking fee that the trial court imposed pursuant to Government Code section 29550.1 and ordered “payable to the City of San Jose.”
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
Defendant contends that the booking fee must be stricken because there was “no evidence” that the $129.75 fee “did not exceed one-half the actual administrative costs” of booking. Defendant has failed to show error.
“Three statutes address defendants’ payment of jail booking fees, Government Code sections 29550, 29550.1, and 29550.2. Which section applies to a given defendant depends on which governmental entity has arrested a defendant before transporting him or her to a county jail.” (People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 592.)
Here, the trial court imposed the booking fee pursuant to Government Code section 29550.1. That section states: “Any city . . . whose officer or agent arrests a person is entitled to recover any criminal justice administration fee imposed by a county from the arrested person if the person is convicted of any criminal offense related to the arrest. A judgment of conviction shall contain an order for payment of the amount of the criminal justice administration fee by the convicted person, and execution shall be issued on the order in the same manner as a judgment in a civil action, but the order shall not be enforceable by contempt. The court shall, as a condition of probation, order the convicted person to reimburse the city . . . for the criminal justice administration fee.” (Gov. Code, § 29550.1.)
Defendant’s argument depends on the legal premise that a booking fee imposed pursuant to Government Code section 29550.1 must be supported by evidence of the actual administrative costs of booking. Nothing in the language of Government Code section 29550.1, however, requires such evidence. Government Code section 29550.1 is completely devoid of any language regarding the actual administrative costs of booking.
Defendant concedes that Government Code section 29550.1 “does not contain express language” requiring evidence of the actual administrative costs of booking. Instead, defendant cursorily asserts that language in Government Code section 29550, subdivision (a)(1), which addresses actual administrative costs, “is incorporated into” Government Code section 29550.1.
Government Code section 29550, subdivision (a)(1) states, in pertinent part: “[A] county may impose a fee upon a city . . . for reimbursement of county expenses incurred with respect to the booking or other processing of persons arrested by an employee of that city . . . where the arrested persons are brought to the county jail for booking or detention. . . . For the 2005-06 fiscal year and each fiscal year thereafter, the fee imposed by a county pursuant to this subdivision shall not exceed one-half of the actual administrative costs . . . incurred in booking or otherwise processing arrested persons. A county may submit an invoice to a city . . . for these expenses incurred by the county on and after July 1, 1990.”
Defendant’s reliance on Government Code section 29550, subdivision (a)(1) is unavailing. By its plain terms, Government Code section 29550, subdivision (a)(1) applies to fees that a “county” may impose “upon a city.” Nothing in Government Code section 29550, subdivision (a)(1) specifies that evidence regarding actual administrative costs is necessary when a defendant is ordered to pay a fee to a city pursuant to Government Code section 29550.1. Rather, Government Code section 29550, subdivision (a)(1) expressly limits its requirements to fees “imposed by a county pursuant to this subdivision.” Thus, we cannot conclude that Government Code section 29550, subdivision (a)(1) requires evidence of actual administrative costs when a court orders a defendant to pay a fee to a city pursuant to Government Code section 29550.1. (See generally Code Civ. Proc., § 1858 [when interpreting a statute, “the office of the Judge is simply to ascertain and declare what is in terms or in substance contained therein, not to insert what has been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted”].)
Defendant has failed to show that a booking fee imposed pursuant to Government Code section 29550.1 must be supported by evidence of the actual administrative costs of booking. Given the faulty legal premise of defendant’s argument, we need not set aside the booking fee imposed here.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
 

______________________________________
RUSHING, P.J.






WE CONCUR:






____________________________________
PREMO, J.






____________________________________
GROVER, J.










People v. Rivero
H043226