People v. T.P.

California Court of Appeal

People v. T.P.

136 Cal. App. 4th 1461, 2006 D.A.R. 2304, 2006 Daily Journal DAR 2304, 39 Cal. Rptr. 3d 729, 2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1691, 2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 242

California Court of Appeal·Decided February 27, 2006·No. No. C048686·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

MORRISON, J.

Following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found that T.P., a minor, had possessed cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)). The minor was declared a ward of the court and was committed to the Sacramento County Boys Ranch. The commitment was stayed pending his compliance with probationary conditions. The court also imposed a $50 laboratory fee pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11372.5.

On appeal, the minor contends (1) the lack of corroboration of accomplice testimony requires reversal of the wardship order, and (2) the laboratory fee is inapplicable in juvenile court proceedings. We disagree with the minor’s first claim but agree with the second.

FACTS*

[1463] DISCUSSION

I*

II

The juvenile court imposed a $50 laboratory fee pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11372.5. This section requires imposition of a $50 fee for any individual convicted of specified offenses, including possession of cocaine. Since juveniles are not convicted of criminal offenses (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 203 [“An order adjudging a minor to be a ward of the juvenile court shall not be deemed a conviction of a crime for any purpose”]), the minor does not, as the People agree, come within the scope of section 11372.5. Hence, the order imposing the fee must be reversed.

DISPOSITION

The order of the juvenile court imposing a $50 fee pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11372.5 is reversed. The order of the juvenile court committing the minor to the Sacramento County Boys Ranch is affirmed.

Sims, Acting P. J., and Nicholson, J., concurred.

On March 3, 2006, the opinion was modified to read as printed above. Appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied June 21, 2006, S142355. Werdegar, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion

MORRISON, J.

Following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found that T.P., a minor, had possessed cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)). The minor was declared a ward of the court and was committed to the Sacramento County Boys Ranch. The commitment was stayed pending his compliance with probationary conditions. The court also imposed a $50 laboratory fee pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11372.5.

On appeal, the minor contends (1) the lack of corroboration of accomplice testimony requires reversal of the wardship order, and (2) the laboratory fee is inapplicable in juvenile court proceedings. We disagree with the minor’s first claim but agree with the second.

FACTS*

[1463] DISCUSSION

I*

II

The juvenile court imposed a $50 laboratory fee pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11372.5. This section requires imposition of a $50 fee for any individual convicted of specified offenses, including possession of cocaine. Since juveniles are not convicted of criminal offenses (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 203 [“An order adjudging a minor to be a ward of the juvenile court shall not be deemed a conviction of a crime for any purpose”]), the minor does not, as the People agree, come within the scope of section 11372.5. Hence, the order imposing the fee must be reversed.

DISPOSITION

The order of the juvenile court imposing a $50 fee pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11372.5 is reversed. The order of the juvenile court committing the minor to the Sacramento County Boys Ranch is affirmed.

Sims, Acting P. J., and Nicholson, J., concurred.

On March 3, 2006, the opinion was modified to read as printed above. Appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied June 21, 2006, S142355. Werdegar, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

Footnotes

People v. T.P., 136 Cal. App. 4th 1461, 2006 D.A.R. 2304, 2006 Daily Journal DAR 2304, 39 Cal. Rptr. 3d 729, 2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1691, 2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 242 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

136 Cal. App. 4th 1461 (People v. T.P.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

DISPOSITION

Footnotes

Related