Filed 5/2/18 P. v. Tauaalo 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

AGNET TAUAALO,

Defendant and Appellant.
H044889
(Santa Clara County
Super. Ct. No. C1755770)

Defendant Agnet Tauaalo appeals from a judgment entered after she pleaded no contest to two counts of theft or embezzlement of more than $950 from an elder or dependent adult (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (d) - counts 1 and 2). Defendant also admitted the allegations that in committing the offenses, she took, damaged or destroyed property exceeding $200,000 (Pen. Code, § 12022.6, subd. (a)(2)) and that the offenses constituted a pattern of related felony conduct of taking more than $500,000 (Pen. Code, § 186.11, subd. (a)(1), (2)). The trial court sentenced defendant to a six-year term, which consisted of four years in county jail and two years on mandatory supervision. On appeal, defendant contends the trial erred when it imposed a criminal justice administration fee (booking fee) of $259.50. We affirm the judgment.


I. Statement of Facts
Defendant, her mother, and her cousin lived in the home of the 73-year-old bedridden victim. Defendant’s mother was the victim’s caregiver and all three defendants lived in the victim’s home without paying rent. They also took advantage of the victim by transferring hundreds of thousands of dollars into their personal accounts. The victim suffered a financial loss of $852,245.00.

II. Discussion
Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed the booking fee of $259.50, because there was no evidence that this amount reflected the actual administrative costs of processing her arrest.

A. Background
The probation officer recommended that the trial court impose a $259.50 booking fee pursuant to Government Code section 29550.2. At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel objected and argued that no showing had been made as to the actual costs incurred for this fee. Noting that the issue was currently before this court, the trial court asked the probation officer if she could explain how the fee was calculated. The probation officer responded that “Judge Cena had a whole hearing [years ago] about this and the cost is actually more than [$]259 --.” The trial court imposed the fee of $259.50 to be paid to the County of Santa Clara.
“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.)
Section 29550.2, subdivision (a) provides: “Any person booked into a county jail . . . is subject to a criminal justice administration fee for administration costs incurred in conjunction with the arresting and booking if the person is convicted of any criminal offense relating to the arrest and booking. The fee which the county is entitled to recover pursuant to this subdivision shall not exceed the actual administrative costs, as defined in subdivision (c), including applicable overhead costs as permitted by federal Circular A 87 standards, incurred in booking or otherwise processing arrested persons.” Under subdivision (c), “ ‘actual administrative costs’ include only those costs for functions that are performed in order to receive an arrestee into a county detention facility.” (§ 29550.2, subd. (c).)
In the present case, the minute order from the sentencing hearing is contained on a pre-printed form. Two amounts are listed on this form for the booking fee: $129.75 and $259.50. The greater amount is circled by hand. The trial court was aware that a booking fee of $259.50 had been imposed in other cases involving payment to the county. It could also have reasonably inferred that since the amount of $259.50 is pre-printed on the minute order form, this amount is from a preexisting fee schedule. Under these circumstances, we find no error.
This conclusion is also supported by the documents of which we have taken judicial notice. County of Santa Clara Resolution 25275, adopted on June 20, 2006, recognizes the authority of the Board of Supervisors to impose the booking fee and acknowledges that the fee “cannot exceed the actual administrative costs incurred by County but may include applicable overhead costs as permitted by Federal Circular A 87 standards[.]” The analyst’s memo recommending adoption of the resolution states that the proposed $259.50 booking fee “is the actual cost of booking an individual into custody . . . .” The supporting cost calculations show that the cost of booking an arrested person into the county jail is $259.51. These costs include: (1) salaries for booking and classification staff, medical and mental health staff, and pretrial services staff; (2) county overhead; and (3) department indirect costs. Thus, these documents establish that the booking fee meets the requirements of section 29550.2.
Defendant does not argue that these documents do not establish that the actual administrative cost in the present case is $259.50. Instead, she argues that since the prosecution did not present these documents at the sentencing hearing, the trial court did not consider all material facts necessary to make a determination of the administrative costs and thus it abused its discretion. We disagree. No statute requires that the prosecutor introduce the 2006 resolution in each case in which the booking fee is imposed, or that the trial court make findings as to the validity of the amount of the booking fee. There is also no statute requiring when a booking fee must be recalculated. While the county may conclude that the 2006 figures should be reviewed, defendant has presented no evidence that the cost of booking and processing an arrestee has dropped below the costs calculated in 2006.

III. Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.













 





_______________________________
Mihara, J.



WE CONCUR:






______________________________
Greenwood, P. J.






______________________________
Elia, J.











People v. Tauaalo
H044889