People v. Rumzie CA6

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 9, 2021H047970California1,444 words

Opinion

Opinion

Danner, J.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The facts of Rumzie’s offense are irrelevant to the issues on appeal.

Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code. In March 2018, the Santa Clara County County District Attorney filed a complaint charging Rumzie with one count of possession or control of matter depicting a person under the age of 18 engaging in or simulating sexual conduct. (§ 311.11, subd. (a).) On March 19, 2019, Rumzie pleaded no contest to the sole count of the complaint. On December 20, 2019, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Rumzie on three years of formal probation with conditions, including a term of 364 days in the county jail (30 days to be served in custody and the balance to be served on electronic monitoring). With respect to fines and fees, the trial court imposed a restitution fine of $300 with a 10 percent administrative fee (§ 1202.4) and an additional suspended probation revocation restitution fine of $300 (§ 1202.44), a $300 fine and penalty assessment (§ 290.3), a court security fee of $40 (§ 1465.8), a conviction assessment of $30 (Gov. Code, § 70373), a “booking fee” of $259.50 (Gov. Code, § 29550.2), a pre-sentence…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.