PEOPLE v. PHILLIPS

















Filed 7/2/10















CERTIFIED
FOR PUBLICATION

IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH
APPELLATE DISTRICT




>

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JASON TROY PHILLIPS, Defendant and Appellant.

F058534 (Super. Ct. No. BF123597A) >OPINION

APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court
of Kern County. Michael E. Dellostritto, Judge.

Richard Jay
Moller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Edmund G.
Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez,
Lloyd G. Carter and Leanne Le Mon, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff
and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

In June of
2008, Jason Troy Phillips (appellant) pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine (Health
& Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) under a deferred entry of judgment,
pursuant to Penal Code sections 1000 and 859a.
In May of 2009, the court found appellant failed to comply with the
deferred entry of judgment program and excluded him pursuant to Penal Code
section 1000.3. It found appellant
guilty based on his previously entered plea under Penal Code section 859a. The court sentenced appellant to a two-year
term^[1] and imposed various fees and fines, including
a $30 assessment under Government Code section 70373 (section 70373).

Appellant
contends only that the assessment imposed pursuant to section 70373 must be
stricken. Though members of this panel
have previously agreed with this position, upon consideration of the opinion of
the Third Appellate District in People v.
Castillo (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1410, we have concluded that it has the
better view.

Section 70373

At sentencing, appellant was
ordered to pay a $30 assessment pursuant to section 70373, subdivision (a)(1)
(the assessment). Appellant argues the
assessment is unauthorized and must be stricken because the crimes occurred
before section 70373's effective date.
We, however, agree with the Third District Court of Appeal that the date
of conviction, not the date of the crime, controls application of the statute. (People
v. Castillo, supra, 182 Cal.App.4th
1410.)

Subdivision
(a)(1) of section 70373 provides in relevant part:

â€