Filed 11 / 16 / 21 P. v. Valentine CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

VINCENT VALENTINE

,
Defendant and Appellan t

. 2d Crim

. No. B 309720 (Super. Ct. No

. 201 9027104 ) ( Ventura C ounty)

Vincent Valentine appeals the judgment entered after he pleaded guilty to resisting an officer in the performance of his
duties (Pen. Code, § 69 , subd. (a)) and admitted suffering a prior
strike conviction (

Id

., § § 667, subds. (c)(1), (e)(1), 1170.12, subds. ( a )(1), (c)(1) )

. The trial court sentenced him to 32 months in state prison and ordered him to pay a $ 300 public defender fee
pursuant to former Government Code 1 section 27712 , which was

1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Government Code.2

repealed effective July 1, 2021. Appellant contends he is entitled

to have any unpai d portion of the public defender f ee vacated pursuant to recently

- en acted section 6111. We agree and shall order the judgment modified accordingly . Otherwise, we affirm.

STATEMENT OF FACTS Because appellant pleaded guilty prior to trial, the relevant
facts are derived from the reporter’s transcript of the preliminary hearing. On the morning of August 17, 2019, California Department of Parks and Recreation Officer Joshua Pace and his
partner observed appellant urinating in public

. When the officers contacted appellant, he ran away and swung his backpack at them

. Appellant eventually stopped running and sat down.
When Officer Pace attempted to handcuff appellant, appellant actively resisted and hit the officer in the face with his left arm. Officer Pace’s partner subsequently subdued appellant with a
Taser and he was han dcuffed and taken into custody.
DISCUSSION
A ppellant c ontends he is entitled to have any unpaid portion of the $300 pub lic defender fee imposed under former
section 27712 vacated pursuant to recently

- enacte d section 6111

. We agree. In 2020, the Le gislature passed Assembly Bill 1869 (2019

- 2020 Reg. Sess.) (A B 1869) to “eliminate the range of administrative fees that agencies and courts are authorized to impose to fund elements of the criminal legal system.” ( Id

. , § 2

, eff. Sept. 18, 2020, operative July 1, 2021.) Among other things, AB 1869 abrogated the cou rt’s authority to impose and collect a public defender fee under former section 277 12 by adding section

611 1 . (A B 1869

, supra , § 11 .) As relevant here, section 6111 provides that “ [o] n and after July 1, 2021, the unpaid balance of3

any court

- imposed costs pursuant to [ now form er ] [s]ection 27712

. . . is unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those costs shall be vacated.” ( § 6111 , subd. (a).) Accordingly, appellant is entitled to have any unpaid portion of the fee imposed under former section 27712 vacated. ( People v. Lopez

- Vinck ( 2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 945, 951

- 954.) The People agree that appellant is not required to pay any portion of the $300 public defender fee that was outstanding as of July 1, 20 2 1. The People claim , however, that we need not order the judgment vacated accordingly because “any outstanding amount of the public defender fee that has not been paid is automatically uncollectable [ sic ] and une nforceable after July 1,
2021.” We are not persuaded. “ Pursuant to the express terms of
section 611 1, subdivision (a) , [appellant] is entitled to the vacatur of that portion of the criminal justice adminis tration fee imposed
pursuant to former section [ 27712] that remains unpaid as of July 1, 2021, and to the modification of his judgment consistent
with suc h vacatur. Section 6111, subdivision (a) provides not only that any costs imposed pursuant to the listed statutory provisions that remain unpaid on and after July 1, 2021 are

‘ unenforceable and uncollectible

, ’ but also that ‘ any portion of a judgment imposing those costs shall be vacated. ’ [Citation.] Thus, by its express terms, section 6111 envisions that the referenced costs are to be vacated, and it makes the vacatur mandatory through its use of the word ‘ shall. ’ . . . We therefore vacate any balance of the costs imposed by the court pursuant to [former section 27712) that remains unpaid as of July 1, 2021.” ( People v . Lopez

- Vinc k

, supra , 68 Cal.App.5th at p p

. 953

- 954 .)4 DISPOSITION Any portion of the $300 public defender fee imposed by the trial court pursuant to former Government Code section 27712 that remains unpaid as of July 1, 2021 is vacated. The superior

court clerk shall modify the abstract of judgment accordingly and
forwa rd a copy of the corrected abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation . As so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

PERREN , J.

We concur:

GILBERT

, P. J.

TANGEMAN , J.Derek D. Malan , Judge Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

R ichard B. Lennon , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellan t.
Rob Bonta , Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill

, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Nima Razfar , Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.