People v. Valencia, 226 Cal. App. 4th 326

On March 10, 2011 deputies responded to a report of a possibly forged prescription at a Target; they located defendant’s vehicle and detained him after a dispatcher identified the car and a suspect entered the store.
Deputy Berner approached, asked consent to search defendant and his person; defendant consented, was searched and seated in the patrol car, and deputies later searched the vehicle, finding multiple prescription bottles and controlled substances.
Defendant was charged in July 2012 with multiple counts including forgery, forged prescription, transportation and possession for sale of controlled substances; he moved to suppress evidence claiming an illegal detention and unlawful search.
The trial court denied the suppression motion, finding the detention supported by the dispatcher’s informant information and that defendant freely consented to the search.
Defendant pled no contest to counts 1–10 in November 2012; sentenced to 2 years 8 months (county jail under now §1170(h)(1)), received 470 days credit, and was ordered to pay fines, assessments, and one $50 criminal laboratory fee (with penalties/surcharges).
On appeal (Wende review), the court considered presentence credit calculation and whether additional laboratory fees and related penalties/surcharges were required on the judgment/abstract.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of detention/search	Deputies had reasonable cause from dispatcher/informant to detain and the search was lawful; consent was given	Detention was unlawful and search therefore unconstitutional; suppression required	Trial court properly denied suppression; detention supported by informant/dispatch and search with consent was lawful
Presentence custody credit calculation	Court and parties agreed 473 days should have been credited; but moot because defendant already released	Defendant sought correction of three-day credit	Moot: defendant served full term and is not subject to supervision, so additional three days produced no collateral relief
Criminal laboratory analysis fees and surcharges	Prosecution: four counts (two §11351 and two §11375(b)(1)) each require a $50 lab analysis fee plus penalties/surcharges	Defendant had only one $50 lab fee imposed; court should not add more	Modify judgment: impose three additional $50 lab fees (total four) with associated penalties and surcharges; amend abstract to reflect four fees
Abstract of judgment accuracy	Abstract failed to reflect oral statement that penalties/surcharges apply to the lab fee	Defendant relied on existing abstract which omitted the fees detail	Abstract must be amended to reflect the correct number of lab fees and corresponding penalties/surcharges

People v. Lloyd, 17 Cal.4th 658 (discussing scope of appellate review under §1538.5)
People v. Panizzon, 13 Cal.4th 68 (procedural context for §1538.5 appeals)
People v. Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (procedural Wende review for appointed appellate counsel)
Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (appellate counsel obligations under Anders/briefing analog)
People v. Taylor, 118 Cal.App.4th 454 (criminal laboratory analysis fee under Health & Safety Code §11372.5)
People v. Turner, 96 Cal.App.4th 1409 (lab fee imposition analysis)
People v. Sharret, 191 Cal.App.4th 859 (penalties and surcharges applicable to lab fees)
People v. Riolo, 33 Cal.3d 223 (presentence credit and probation/post-confinement implications)
People v. Bruner, 9 Cal.4th 1178 (presentence credit impact on parole/supervision)
People v. Ellison, 111 Cal.App.4th 1360 (mootness analysis for presentence credit challenges)
People v. Lindsey, 20 Cal.App.3d 742 (mootness precedent for credit disputes)