P. v. Moon CA3 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • Filed 6/14/13 P. v. Moon 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    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
    (Butte)
    ----
    THE PEOPLE,                                                                                  C071583
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                    (Super. Ct. No. CM035929)
    v.
    ALAN JAMES MOON,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    In exchange for a stipulated sentence, defendant Alan James Moon pleaded no
    contest to making criminal threats and admitted previously serving a prison term.
    Defendant’s only contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in ordering him
    to pay a $286 supplemental probation report fee because there is insufficient evidence to
    support a finding he had the ability to pay that fee.
    Defendant claims that because Penal Code section 1203.1b is predicated on a
    defendant’s ability to pay and there was no evidence before the trial court that he had
    such ability, the fees were improperly imposed. The People respond that defendant
    1
    forfeited this issue by not objecting in the trial court to imposition of the fee. The People
    have the better argument.
    In a recent decision, the California Supreme Court ruled that “a defendant who
    fails to contest the booking fee when the court imposes it forfeits the right to challenge it
    on appeal.” (People v. McCullough (2013) 
    56 Cal.4th 589
    , 591.) Here, defendant failed
    to contest the booking fee when it was imposed by the trial court. Accordingly, he has
    forfeited the right to challenge that fee on appeal.
    We have, however, identified a clerical error on the abstract of judgment that
    requires correction: the abstract of judgment omits the court’s order that defendant pay a
    $286 supplemental probation report fee. We will direct the trial court to correct this
    clerical error.
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to correct the abstract of
    judgment to include the court’s order that defendant pay a $286 supplemental probation
    report fee. The trial court shall forward a certified copy of the corrected abstract of
    judgment to the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
    RAYE              , P. J.
    We concur:
    MURRAY               , J.
    HOCH                 , J.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: C071583

Filed Date: 6/14/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021