People v. Rodriguez CA4/1 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • Filed 12/23/13 P. v. Rodriguez CA4/1
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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.
    COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION ONE
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    THE PEOPLE,                                                          D063583
    Plaintiff and Respondent,
    v.                                                          (Super. Ct. No. SCS260464)
    EMIGDIO SALVADOR RODRIGUEZ,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kathleen M.
    Lewis, Judge. Affirmed.
    Patrick J. Hennessey Jr., for Defendant and Appellant.
    Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney
    General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Natasha Cortina and Barry Carlton,
    Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    INTRODUCTION
    Emigdio Salvador Rodriguez pleaded guilty to committing vandalism causing
    damage of $400 or more (Pen. Code,1 § 594, subds. (a) & (b)(1)). The trial court
    suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on probation for three years. As a
    condition of probation, the court ordered him to pay an administrative processing fee of
    $25 under section 1463.07.
    Rodriguez appeals, contending we must reverse the administrative processing fee
    because it does not apply under the circumstances of this case. We disagree and affirm the
    order.
    BACKGROUND2
    Rodriguez pleaded guilty as part of a negotiated plea agreement. The agreement
    contemplated Rodriguez would not serve any additional time beyond what he had served at
    the time of the guilty plea. Nonetheless, before the court sentenced Rodriguez, the
    prosecutor wanted a formal probation report. To honor the parties' agreement, the court
    released Rodriguez on his own recognizance at the conclusion of the change of plea
    hearing and ordered him to return to court for the sentencing hearing.
    1        Further statutory references are also to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
    2      We have omitted a summary of the facts underlying Rodriguez's guilty plea as they
    are not relevant to the issue raised on appeal.
    2
    DISCUSSION
    Section 1463.07 provides: "An administrative screening fee of twenty-five dollars
    ($25) shall be collected from each person arrested and released on his or her own
    recognizance upon conviction of any criminal offense related to the arrest other than an
    infraction." On its face, the statute applies whenever a person is arrested and subsequently
    released on his or her own recognizance.
    Here, the record shows Rodriguez was arrested and then remanded to the San Diego
    county sheriff's custody, where he remained until the court released him on his own
    recognizance pending the sentencing hearing. These circumstances fall squarely within the
    ambit of section 1463.07. Nonetheless, Rodriguez contends the court should not have
    imposed the fee because, when the court released him pending his sentencing, he had
    served all of the custody time contemplated by the parties. However, the statute contains
    no exception for such circumstances. Rodriguez, therefore, has not established the court
    erred in imposing the fee.
    DISPOSITION
    The order is affirmed.
    McCONNELL, P. J.
    WE CONCUR:
    NARES, J.
    McINTYRE, J.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: D063583

Filed Date: 12/23/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021