People v. Pace CA4/1

DISCUSSION

The Attorney General argues Pace forfeited his claim by failing to raise it at

sentencing. There is a split of authority on the issue of whether the forfeiture

doctrine applies in the context of challenges to the imposition of booking fees.

(People v. Pacheco (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1392, 1397 (Pacheco) [holding

forfeiture doctrine inapplicable]; People v. Hodges (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1348,

1357 [holding forfeiture doctrine applicable].) This issue is currently before the

California Supreme Court. (People v. McCullough (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 864,

review granted June 29, 2011, S192513.) Even if Pace did not forfeit his

challenge, we reject his contentions.

Sections 29550, 29550.1, and 29550.2 permit arresting agencies to recover

booking fees from a person convicted of a criminal offense related to that person's

arrest. (§§ 29550, subd. (c), 29550.1, 29550.2, subd. (a).) Section 29550.1 does

not require the court to find the convicted person has the ability to pay the booking

fee when the court imposes the fee. (§ 29550.1.) Sections 29550 and 29550.2,

alternatively, require that the court find an ability to pay. (§§ 29550, subd. (d)(2),

29550.2, subd.…