Filed 9/25/13 P. v. Nguyen CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. SANG VAN NGUYEN, Defendant and Appellant. H039081 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. C1227546)

S TATEMENT OF THE C ASE Defendant Sang Van Nguyen pleaded guilty to two count s of petty theft with a prior robbery conviction (Pen. Code, § 666, subd. (b)(1)), one count of false personation exposing the victim to liability (Pen. Code, § 529), one coun t of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459/460, subd. (b)), and one count of possession of controlled substance paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 113 64). Defendant admitted a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)(i )/1170.12 ). The trial court sentenced defendant to four years in prison and impo sed various fines and fees, including a $150 drug program fee pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11372.7. Defendant now appeals from the judgment of conviction, arguing that the drug program fee must be stricken because the tr ial court failed to expressly determine his ability to pay the fee. Defenda nt alternatively requests that we remand the matter to the trial court for a determination of his ability to pay the fee. As set forth below, we2 conclude that an express fi nding regarding defenda nt’s ability to pay was not required, and that the trial court proper ly imposed the drug program fee. 1 We accordingly will
affirm.
D ISCUSSION 2 Background The probation report recommended that th e trial court order defendant to pay
various fines and fees. One of the fees recommended by the probation report was a $150 drug program fee. Near the end of defendant’s sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a $150 drug program fee pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11372.7. 3 Shortly thereafter, the trial court stated : “Although I think attorney’s fees are appropriate, I don’t think the defendant has the ability to pa y them, and I will not order them.” The Trial Court Properly Imposed the Drug Program Fee Section 11372.7 states that “each person who is convicted of a violation of this chapter shall pay a drug program fee in an am ount not to exceed on e hundred fifty dollars ($150) for each separate offense.” (§ 11372.7, subd. (a)). Section 11372.7 further states
that the trial court “shall determine whether or not the person . . . has the ability to pay a drug program fee,” and that “the person shall not be required to pa y a drug program fee”
if the trial court determines that the person is unable to pay the fee. (§ 11372.7, subd. (b).) When determining whether a person is able to pay a drug program fee, the

1 The People contend that defendant forfe ited his claim by failing to object to the drug program fee in the trial court. Beca use we can easily resolve defendant’s claim on the merits, we will not addre ss the issue of forfeiture.

2 The facts underlying defendant’s conv iction are not relevant to the issue presented on appeal. We therefor e will not summarize the facts.

3 Subsequent unspecified statutory referenc es are to the Health and Safety Code.3 trial court “is not required to st ate its finding on the record.” ( People v. Martinez (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1511, 1518 ( Martinez ); see also People v. Staley (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 782, 785 ( Staley ) [section 11372.7 “does not require th e trial court to make an express finding of ability to pay a drug program fee”].) “ ‘The general rule is that a trial court is presumed to have been aware of and followed the applicable law.’ ” ( Martinez, supra, 65 Cal.App.4th at p. 1517.) Thus, on a silent record we presume that a trial cour t that has imposed a drug program fee has
determined that the defendant is able to pay the fee. ( Ibid; People v. Clark (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1041, 1050.) In the instant case, the trial court di d not make an express finding regarding defendant’s ability to pay the drug program fee. Such an express finding, however, was not required. ( Martinez, supra, 65 Cal.App.4th at p. 1518; Staley, supra, 10 Cal.App.4th at p. 785.) Given the trial court’s impositi on of a drug program fee, we must presume
that the trial court determined that de fendant was able to pay the fee. ( Martinez, supra, 65 Cal.App.4th at p. 1517; Clark, supra, 7 Cal.App.4th at p. 1050.) Indeed, the record here affirmatively supports the presumption that the trial court determined defendant’s ability to pay the drug progra m fee. The trial court’s co mment regarding defendant’s ability to pay attorney fees im plies that the trial court cons idered defendant’s financial situation when imposing all the fines and fe es. Moreover, because there was no evidence that defendant was unable to maintain employm ent, there was an adequate basis for the
trial court to conclude that defendant had th e ability to pay the drug program fee. (See Staley, supra, 10 Cal.App.4th at p. 783 [imposition of a drug program fee is appropriate “where the person has no physic al, mental or emotional impe diment which precludes the person from finding and maintaining employ ment once his or her sentence is completed”].) Accordingly, we conclude th at the trial court did in fact determine defendant’s ability to pay the drug program fee, and that the trial court sufficiently4 complied with the requirements of section 1137 2.7. We therefore will not strike the drug program fee.
D ISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

__________ _______________ _____________ RUSHING, P.J.

WE CONCUR:

___________________ _________________ PREMO, J.

___________________ _________________ ELIA, J.