PEOPLE v. BONDS

No. C082389.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALBERT LEON BONDS, JR., Defendant and Appellant.

Court of Appeals of California, Third District, Sacramento.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115

BUTZ, J.

Defendant Albert Leon Bonds, Jr., pleaded no contest to one count of failing to disclose the origin of recording or audio visual work. (Pen. Code, § 653w, subd. (a).)1 The trial court suspended imposition of sentence, placed defendant on formal probation for five years, and ordered him to serve 364 days in county jail as a condition of probation. The trial court also ordered defendant to pay a $25 urinalysis fee.

On appeal, defendant contends the urinalysis fee is an unauthorized sentence because he was not convicted of "`any offense involving the unlawful possession, use, sale, or other furnishing of any controlled substance.' (Pen. Code, § 1203.1ab.)" The People concede the issue.

The trial court failed to identify the authority upon which it relied to order defendant to pay a urinalysis fee. The People and defendant agree the trial court presumably relied on section 1203.1ab, which provides in relevant part that "[u]pon conviction of any offense involving the unlawful possession, use, sale, or other furnishing of any controlled substance, . . . the court, when recommended by the probation officer, shall require as a condition of probation that the defendant shall not use or be under the influence of any controlled substance and shall submit to drug and substance abuse testing as directed by the probation officer. If the defendant is required to submit to testing . . ., the court shall order the defendant to pay a reasonable fee, which shall not exceed the actual cost of the testing." We agree this is a reasonable assumption.

Defendant was not convicted of any of the offenses identified in section 1203.1ab. Moreover, the trial court struck the proposed probation conditions requiring defendant to submit to drug and alcohol testing. Accordingly, on this record, we accept the People's concession that the urinalysis fee provision is an unauthorized sentence and order it stricken from the judgment. (See People v. Valenzuela (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1249 ["an unauthorized sentence may be corrected at any time even if there was no objection in the trial court"].)

DISPOSITION

The order requiring defendant to pay a $25 urinalysis fee is hereby stricken from the judgment. The judgment is affirmed as modified. The trial court is directed to prepare a corrected judgment and deliver a certified copy to the relevant authority.

BLEASE, Acting P. J. and HULL, J., concurs.

FootNotes


1. Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases