Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta People v. Valencia 226 Cal. App. 4th 326

← Cases

People v. Valencia

226 Cal. App. 4th 326 Court Second Dist., Div. Five. Decision date 2014-05-19 Docket No. B245709 English

Delivered by TURNER, P. J.

Contents

Majority

p. 326
[No. B245709.
Second Dist., Div. Five.
May 19, 2014.]
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CARLOS ALBERT VALENCIA, Defendant and Appellant.
[CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION[1] ]
p. 327
Counsel
Richard Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Linda C. Johnson and Elaine F. Tumonis, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Opinion

Defendant, Carlos Albert Valencia, appeals from the November 2, 2012 judgment entered after he pled no contest to charges of forgery, forged prescription, and transportation and possession for sale of hydrocodone and alprazolam. He pled no contest after his motion to suppress evidence was denied by the trial court. Defendant appeals under Penal Code section 1538.5, subdivision (m).[1] (People v. Lloyd (1998) 17 Cal.4th 658 , 664-665 [ 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 224 , 951 P.2d 1191 ]; People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68 , 74-75 [ 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 851 , 913 P.2d 1061 ].) In the published portion of this opinion, we discuss issues of mootness concerning presentence credits and fines imposed for crimes committed after October 1, 2011. Specified offenses occurring after that date are subject to the 2011 realignment legislation. As will be noted, we conclude that any contention concerning inadequate presentence credits is moot. And, we conclude that the prosecutor’s contention concerning inadequate fines, penalties and surcharges is not moot. Accordingly, we modify the judgment to impose additional fines, penalties and surcharges.

1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

p. 328
Filed on July 16, 2012, an information charged defendant with 14 felony counts: forgery (§ 470, subd. (d); count 1); forged prescription (Bus. & Prof. Code § 4324, subd. (a); count 2); drug possession, forged prescription (Bus. & Prof. Code § 4324, subd. (b); count 3); transportation or sale of a controlled substance—hydrocodone, hydromorphone hydrochloride, and promethazine with codeine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a); counts 4, 8, 10, 13); possession for sale of a controlled substance—hydrocodone, hydromorphone hydrochloride, and promethazine with codeine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351; counts 5, 9, 11); and possession for sale of designated controlled substances—alprazolam and temazepam (Health & Saf. Code, § 11375, subd. (b)(1); counts 6, 7, 12). As to counts 4, 8, 10 and 13, defendant allegedly offered for sale or sold more than 14.25 grams of a substance containing heroin.[2]

On November 2, 2012, defendant pled no contest to counts 1 through 10. The trial court dismissed counts 4, 8 and 10 pursuant to § 1385, subd. (a). The trial court orally stated the probation report suggested defendant might have been using the prescription drugs for his own pain relief. (The clerk’s minutes do not reflect any such reasons as required by § 1385, subd. (a).) The prosecution has not appealed the partial dismissal order. Counts 11 through 14 were dismissed pursuant to plea negotiations. Defendant was sentenced to two years eight months consisting of the low term of two years for count 1 plus one-third the midterm, or eight months, for count 2. Concurrent sentences were imposed for counts 3, 5 through 7, and 9. Defendant was sentenced on the seven counts to county jail pursuant to what is now section 1170, subdivision (h)(1). Defendant received credit for 235 days in presentence custody plus 235 conduct credits for a total of 470 days. Defendant was ordered to pay a $240 restitution fine; $280 court operations assessment; $210 conviction assessment; and a single $50 criminal lab fee plus penalty assessments. No postincarceration period of supervision was imposed pursuant to what is now section 1170, subdivision (h)(5)(B).

Defendant filed his notice of appeal on November 30, 2012. After the notice of appeal was filed, we appointed counsel to represent defendant. After examination of the record, appointed appellate counsel filed a brief in which no issues were raised. Instead, appointed appellate counsel asked us to independently review the entire record on appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 , 441-442 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 839 , 600 P.2d 1071 ]. (See Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259 , 264 [ 145 L.Ed.2d 756 , 120 S.Ct. 746 ].) On March 27, 2013, we advised defendant he had 30 days within which to submit by brief or letter any contentions or argument he wished us

* See footnote, ante, page 326.

p. 329
to consider. No response has been received. We have examined the entire record. No argument exists that would potentially be favorable to defendant on appeal. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 , 112-113 [ 51 Cal.Rptr.3d 98 , 146 P.3d 547 ]; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

On August 28, 2013, we requested supplemental briefing on whether the trial court properly calculated defendant’s presentence credit. The parties agree defendant should have been awarded 473 days of presentence custody credit instead of 470 days. But the issue is moot because defendant .was released from the Los Angeles County jail on July 3, 2013. In the past, prior to the adoption of the 2011 realignment legislation, issues raised by sentenced felons concerning presentence credits avoided mootness determinations on appeal in varying circumstances. For example, a defendant placed on probation was entitled to a correct computation of credits as he or she was still subject to court jurisdiction in the event of a violation. (§ 2900.5, subds. (c)-(d); see People v. Riolo (1983) 33 Cal.3d 223 , 226 [ 188 Cal.Rptr. 371 , 655 P.2d 723 ].) Also, time served in state prison in excess of a determinate term was credited against the prisoner’s parole period. (In re Bush (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 133 , 140-141 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.3d 256 ]; In re Carter (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 271 , 273 [ 244 Cal.Rptr. 648 ].) Thus, when a prisoner received insufficient presentence credits and had completed his or her term, the inmate’s release date from parole supervision would be advanced. (People v. Bruner (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1178 , 1183, fn. 4 [ 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 534 , 892 P.2d 1277 ]; People v. Harris (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 717 , 720 [ 240 Cal.Rptr. 891 ], disapproved on a different point in People v. Arnold (2004) 33 Cal.4th 294 , 307 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 840 , 92 P.3d 335 ].) Further, in a case where a defendant is sentenced to prison, if the presentence custody exceeds the sentence, the entire term is deemed served. (§ 2900.5, subd. (a); see In re Bush, supra, 161 Cal.App.4th at pp. 140-141.) No fines have been imposed against which excessive time served in custody could apply. (§ 2900.5, subd. (a); People v. Robinson (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 401 , 406-107 [ 146 Cal.Rptr.3d 837 ].) Thus, under varying circumstances, even when an accused had served an entire term, presentence credit issues were not always moot. None of these scenarios applies to defendant. As noted, defendant has served his entire sentence and is not subject to postrelease supervision.

No period of postincarceration supervision was ordered as permitted by section 1170, subdivision (h)(5)(B). Because no prejudicial collateral consequences would be ameliorated by awarding defendant three additional days of presentence custody credit, the issue is moot. (See People v. Ellison (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1360 , 1368-1369 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 713 ]; People v. Lindsey (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 742 , 744 [ 97 Cal.Rptr. 872 ].)

We also requested briefing on whether the abstract of judgment should be modified. The abstract of judgment fails to reflect the oral pronouncement

p. 330
that the penalties and surcharge apply to the laboratory fee. The parties agree the abstract of judgment may be amended. In addition, the Attorney General argues three additional criminal laboratory fees should have been imposed by the trial court. We agree.

Defendant was convicted of two counts for violating Health and Safety Code section 11351 (counts 5 and 9). He also was convicted of two counts for violating Health and Safety Code section 11375, subdivision (b)(1) (counts 6 and 7). Defendant was subject to a Health and Safety Code section 11372.5, subdivision (a) $50 mandatory criminal laboratory analysis fee for each of the four counts. (People v. Taylor (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 454 , 456 [ 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 923 ]; People v. Turner (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1409 , 1413 [ 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 99 ].) In addition, each criminal laboratory analysis fee is subject to penalties and a surcharge, which total $130 per $50 fine in Los Angeles County. (People v. Sharret (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 859 , 863-864 [ 120 Cal.Rptr.3d 195 ].) The trial court orally imposed only a single $50 criminal laboratory analysis fee “plus penalties and assessments.”

DISPOSITION

The judgment is modified to impose three additional $50 criminal laboratory analysis fees together with penalties and surcharges. The abstract of judgment shall be amended to reflect four criminal laboratory analysis fees together with penalties and surcharges. The judgment is affirmed in all other respects. Upon remittitur issuance, the clerk of the superior court shall prepare an amended abstract of judgment and forward it to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Mosk, J., and Kriegler, J., concurred.

Cases cited

Statutes and regulations cited