P. v. Terway

Filed 3/28/07 P. v. Terway 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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)

----

Defendant David Joseph Terway entered a negotiated plea of no contest to three counts of committing forcible lewd acts upon a child under the age of 14. (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (b)(1).) The offenses occurred between December 2000 and December 2002. Defendant entered his plea on May 2, 2006. On June 9, 2006, in accordance with his plea, defendant was sentenced to state prison for 18 years. The trial court also imposed three $20 security fees pursuant to Penal Code section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1).

Defendant contends the trial court erred in imposing the security fees because his crimes were committed between 2000 and 2002--before the effective date of section 1465.8.

Penal Code section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1), provides in pertinent part: To ensure and maintain adequate funding for court security, a fee of twenty dollars ($20) shall be imposed on every conviction for a criminal offense . . . . This statute was enacted on August 2, 2003, and became operative on August 17, 2003. (Stats. 2003, ch. 159, 25, 27, 29.)

Defendant contends that because he committed his offenses before the effective date of Penal Code section 1465.8, the imposition of the three $20 court security fees pursuant to that statute violated Penal Code section 3, which provides that [n]o part of [the Penal Code] is retroactive, unless expressly so declared.

Penal Code section 3 embodies the general rule that when there is nothing to indicate the contrary it will be presumed that the Legislature intended a statute to operate prospectively and not retroactively. That rule of construction, however, is not a straitjacket. . . . (In re Chavez (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 989, 993.) Two recent decisions have addressed the application of retroactivity principles to court security fees and are now pending in our Supreme Court. (People v. Carmichael, review granted May 10, 2006, S141415 [holding the fee cannot be imposed retroactively because there was no clear indication that the Legislature intended the statute to be applied retroactively]; People v. Alford, review granted May 10, 2006, S142508 [holding the fee may be imposed upon a defendant whose crime occurred before the effective date of the statute because the history, purpose and impact of the law reveals the Legislature intended Penal Code section 1465.8 to apply retroactively].)

We agree with the reasoning in People v. Alford that Penal Code section 1465.8 may be applied retroactively: the enactment of Penal Code section 1465.8 as part of an urgency measure to implement the Budget Act of 2003 indicates a legislative intent to implement the statute immediately; retroactive application facilitates the stated objective of the statute, which is to ensure and maintain adequate funding for court security; the imposition of the fee does not interfere with a defendants antecedent rights; a defendant does not have a vested interest in avoiding a minimal contribution to court security; and a

defendant does not incur additional punishment from imposition of the fee. Accordingly, we find no error in the imposition of the fee.

Disposition

The judgment is affirmed.

DAVIS , J.

We concur:

SCOTLAND, P.J.

RAYE , J.

Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.

Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line attorney.