P. v. Adside

Filed 3/21/06 P. v. Adside CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

Defendant Phillip Steven Adside entered a negotiated plea of no contest to failing to register as a sex offender (Pen. Code, § 290, subd. (g)(2))^[1] and admitted a strike prior (rape) (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) in exchange for the low term of 16 months, doubled for the strike prior, and the dismissal of the remaining count. The trial court sentenced defendant accordingly. The court also imposed various fees and fines.

Defendant appeals, contending insufficient evidence supports the trial court's imposition of $540 in attorney fees. We agree and shall strike the attorney fees award.

The facts underlying the offense are not relevant to the issue raised on appeal and will not be recounted. Defendant entered his plea, waived referral to probation for a sentencing report and was sentenced in the same proceeding. The trial court imposed $540 in attorney fees without objection.

The People initially argue defendant has forfeited his challenge to the attorney fees by failing to raise an objection in the trial court. We disagree. A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is not the type of claim forfeited unless there has been a guilty plea or admission and the challenge is to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the offense or enhancement. (People v. Lopez (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1508, 1537, citing People v. Rodriguez (1998) 17 Cal.4th 253, 262; see also People v. Parra (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 222, 224, fn. 2.)

Section 987.8 provides in relevant part as follows:

â€