Opinion
No. C048686
February 27, 2006 As modified March 3, 2006 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 976.1, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of the Facts and part I of the Discussion.
Appeal from the Superior Court of Sacramento County, No. JV102121, Kenneth G. Peterson, Judge.
Jackie Menaster, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, and Wanda Hill Rouzan, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
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
See footnote, ante, page 1461.
Sacramento Police Officer Daniel Monk stopped a vehicle driven by J.M. for a traffic violation. The minor was in the front passenger seat and T.S. was in the rear seat. Officer Monk questioned the youths individually and J.M. told him that T.S. possessed drugs. Officer Monk searched T.S. and found a baggie of cocaine inside his shoe. T.S. testified that as Officer Monk stopped the vehicle, the minor told T.S. that the minor had drugs in his possession and placed a baggie on the floorboard of the back seat near T.S.'s foot. Not wanting the drugs by near foot, T.S. picked up the baggie and placed it inside his shoe. J.M. testified that as the vehicle was being stopped, the minor pulled the baggie from his pocket, gave it to J.M. and J.M. gave it back to the minor. At T.S.'s request, the minor then gave T.S. the baggie and T.S. put it inside his shoe. J.M. told the officer the baggie was inside T.S.'s shoe.
DISCUSSION I
See footnote, ante, page 1461.
II
(1) 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.