P. v. Mendoza
Filed 4/28/06 P. v. Mendoza CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GABRIEL MENDOZA, Defendant and Appellant. |
F047409
(Super. Ct. No. F97903054-5)
OPINION |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Gary R. Orozco, Judge.
Rex Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, Charles A. French and Angelo S. Edralin, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
A complaint filed March 6, 1997 charged Gabriel Mendoza with two offenses: in count one with sale, and in count two with possession for sale, of a controlled substance, to wit: methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11379 and 11378, respectively.) The complaint also alleged as to both counts that the drugs exceeded one kilogram by weight or 30 liters by volume. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.4, subd. (b)(1) [three-year weight enhancement].) Mendoza pleaded not guilty to the charges and denied the allegations.
Mendoza accepted a plea agreement a month later. He entered a no contest plea to count one and admitted the enhancement allegation. The other count and allegation were dismissed. The agreement further provided that Mendoza would be sentenced to no more than five years in prison: a mitigated two-year term for the offense, plus a three-year weight enhancement. Mendoza subsequently moved to withdraw his plea; the motion was denied and sentencing was set for September 17, 1997. Mendoza failed to appear, and a warrant was issued for his arrest.
Mendoza was next in court six and a half years later, on April 26, 2004, in answer to a complaint charging him with possession of ephedrine with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11383, subd. (c)(1)), and with conspiring to manufacture methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379.6; Pen. Code, § 182, subd. (a)(1)).[1] On May 27, 2004, pursuant to a plea agreement, Mendoza pleaded no contest to the first count with the understanding his sentence would be made consecutive to the term yet to be imposed in his still-pending 1997 case.
On December 21, 2004, the trial court sentenced Mendoza to the five-year term as previously agreed in the 1997 case, and to the agreed 16-month consecutive term (equal to one-third the middle term) in the 2004 case. The court, in each case, directed Mendoza to pay a $20 court security fee pursuant to section 1465.8.
This is an appeal from the judgment in the 1997 case. Mendoza argues the court's imposition of a court security fee was error for two reasons: it violated the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws, and it violated the statutory prohibition against retroactive application of criminal statutes. Since we agree with the second contention, we do not reach the first.[2]
DISCUSSION
The Court Security Fee
Section 1465.8 provides in part:
â€
