People v. Webb
A147740
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 12, 2017Background
- Defendant David Webb was convicted of vehicle theft (§ 10851/§ 666.5), identity theft (§ 530.5(a)), possession for sale and transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Safety Code §§ 11378, 11379), and misdemeanor receiving stolen property (§ 496).
- Police found Webb in the driver’s seat of a reported stolen car, observed him drop a box containing methamphetamine and a scale, recovered checks in others’ names, and found drugs/indicia of sales at his home and on a phone.
- Jury convicted on all counts; court imposed a five-year sentence (2 years jail + 3 years mandatory supervision) and assessed a $50 criminal laboratory analysis fee and a drug program fee (up to $150), but added penalty assessments, yielding $190 and $570 totals respectively; court also ordered $500 in attorney fees.
- On appeal Webb argued (1) ineffective assistance for failure to move to dismiss the identity-theft count under the Williamson rule, (2) penalty assessments were improperly applied to the Health & Safety Code fees, and (3) the court erred in imposing $500 attorney fees without determining his ability to pay.
- Court affirmed convictions, held counsel was not ineffective on the Williamson issue, reversed as to penalty assessments on the two Health & Safety Code fees, and remanded to determine Webb’s present ability to pay attorney fees under § 987.8 and to recalculate the fees excluding penalty assessments.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Webb’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving to dismiss § 530.5 identity theft under the Williamson rule | Williamson inapplicable; identity theft properly charged | Williamson barred felony § 530.5 because conduct fits misdemeanor § 148.9/Vehicle Code § 31 | Not ineffective — Williamson does not apply because § 530.5 requires obtaining/using another’s identifying information without consent, which does not necessarily follow from lying to an officer |
| Whether penalty assessments may be imposed on Health & Safety Code § 11372.5 (crime-lab) and § 11372.7 (drug program) fees | Assessments apply; prior authorities treat these as fines/penalties | These are nonpunitive administrative fees not subject to penalty assessments | Assessments erred; fees are nonpunitive administrative charges — remand to recalculate without assessments |
| Whether the trial court properly imposed $500 attorney fees without finding ability to pay under Penal Code § 987.8 | Trial court lacked authority to waive fees only if defendant can pay; imposition appropriate if ability exists | Court erred by imposing fee without making ability-to-pay finding; Webb is indigent | Remand for § 987.8 hearing to determine present ability to pay and, if required, to set or waive reimbursement |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Williamson, 43 Cal.2d 651 (1954) (establishes rule limiting prosecution under general statute where special statute covers same conduct)
- People v. Murphy, 52 Cal.4th 81 (2011) (explains Williamson application tests and context analysis)
- People v. Sierra, 37 Cal.App.4th 1690 (1995) (held H&S § 11372.7 drug program fee was a fine subject to penalty assessments)
- People v. Martinez, 65 Cal.App.4th 1511 (1998) (extended Sierra to hold H&S § 11372.5 crime-lab fee subject to penalty assessments)
- People v. Watts, 2 Cal.App.5th 223 (2016) (held crime-lab fee is a nonpunitive fee not subject to penalty assessments)
- People v. Moore, 12 Cal.App.5th 558 (2017) (held crime-lab fee is a fine/penalty subject to assessments; disagreed with Watts)
- People v. Alford, 42 Cal.4th 749 (2007) (court security fee is nonpunitive; purpose-based test for fee vs. fine)
- People v. Talibdeen, 27 Cal.4th 1151 (2002) (addressed mandatory nature of penalty assessments)
- People v. Verduzco, 210 Cal.App.4th 1406 (2012) (explains § 987.8 procedures and requirement to determine ability to pay for defense cost reimbursement)