P. v. Ford
Filed 8/22/07 P. v. Ford 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Sacramento)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMIL QUINNTEL FORD, Defendant and Appellant. | C053092 (Super. Ct. No. 05F11075) |
When Maribel Medina returned home at 9:10 a.m. on December 19, 2005, she discovered that her home had been burglarized and called the police. Rancho Cordova Police Officer Steven Wright found drawers and doors had been opened and pry marks were on the sliding glass door. Medina discovered that her sons Play Station 2 and games were missing, as well as CDs, her sons prescription glasses and a cell phone.
When Calvin Daniel returned home at 11:45 a.m. that same day, and in the same neighborhood as Medinas home, he heard a noise in his living room or the backyard as he walked through the front door. He found his suitcases with his personal property inside, as well as other items scattered in the hall and in the living room, and a full suitcase in the backyard. Daniel told his spouse to call the police.
Officers Wright and Barry, in separate patrol cars, went to the Daniel residence, and on the way both saw defendant, Jamil Quinntel Ford, a Black man, pulling a black suitcase on wheels about one-quarter of a mile from Daniels residence. Officer Wright also observed that defendant was carrying a light blue gym bag. Officer Barry thought defendant also had a backpack but was not sure. Upon arrival, Officer Wright asked and Daniel confirmed that he was missing a light blue gym bag. Officer Wright found pry marks on the sliding glass door of Daniels residence.
When Officer Barry backtracked to find defendant with the luggage, he saw a White man in an open carport with a black and green duffel bag. Officer Barry stopped to talk to the man, who admitted he was on probation. When Officer Barry ordered the man to turn around to be cuffed, the man fled, dropping the bag. Officer Barry grabbed the black and green duffel bag which contained some paperwork and two Bic disposable razors. A woman at the residence where the carport was located identified the man as her son, Dustin Noyes. Medina testified that the duffel bag associated with Noyes did not belong to her.
Officer Wright left the Daniel residence to provide backup to Officer Barry who was pursuing the White man. On the way, Officer Wright observed defendant still carrying the two pieces of luggage. Officer Wright stopped defendant and observed that the tag on the black suitcase had Medinas name and address. Officer Wright arrested defendant. The black suitcase had Medinas property as well as a black leather jacket which did not belong to her. The blue gym bag had Daniels property.
A subsequent search of defendant revealed a watch belonging to Daniels spouse and a baggie with 1.15 grams of marijuana.
Defendant did not testify at trial.
An amended information charged defendant with possession of marijuana, a misdemeanor (Health & Saf. Code, 11357, subd. (b) - count five), two counts of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, 459 - counts one and two),[1]and two counts of receiving stolen property ( 496, subd. (a) - counts three and four). The amended information further alleged a strike prior ( 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12), a prior serious felony conviction ( 667, subd. (a)) and a prior prison term ( 667.5, subd. (b)).
A jury convicted defendant on counts one, three, four and five. The jury deadlocked on count two. The court declared a mistrial on count two and the prosecutors motion to dismiss that count was granted. In bifurcated proceedings, the court found the priors to be true.
After denying defendants motions to strike the strike prior and for a new trial, the court sentenced defendant to state prison for an aggregate term of 15 years and four months, that is, the midterm of four years, doubled for the strike prior, for count one; the midterm of two years, doubled for the strike prior, stayed pursuant to section 654 for count three; a consecutive one-third the midterm of two years or eight months, doubled for the strike prior, for count four; probation denied and a $100 restitution fine for count five; five years for the prior serious felony conviction; and one year for the prior prison term.
Defendant appeals.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
We note a sentencing error. The court imposed $60 total as court security fees ( 1465.8). Defendant was convicted of four offenses. A court security fee of $20 is imposed for every conviction for a criminal offense. ( 1465.8; People v. Schoeb (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 861, 865-867; People v. Wallace (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 867, 871 (Wallace).) The total should have been $80. It matters not that count three was stayed pursuant to section 654. Section 654 bars double punishment for a single act or omission or an indivisible course of conduct. ( 654; People v. Latimer (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1203, 1208.) A court security fee, however, is not a fine but rather a non-punitive fee, and as such, is not punishment and more akin to a jail booking or classification fee. ( 15; Wallace, supra, at pp. 877-879; compare Ralphs Grocery Co. v. Dept. of Food and Agriculture (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 694, 700-701.) Section 654 is inapplicable to a court security fee. We will modify the judgment accordingly. (People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 851-854.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified to provide for $80 in court security fees. As modified, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment accordingly and to forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.
We concur:
SCOTLAND, P.J.
MORRISON , J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.
Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line Lawyers.
[1] Hereafter, undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
