Opinion
A157171
12-19-2019
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHRISTINE CAMP, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Napa County Super. Ct. Nos. CR180430 & CR184883)
Defendant and appellant Christine Camp (appellant) appeals from the trial court's orders revoking probation in two cases and sentencing her to a three-year term. Her sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in imposing two $300 restitution fines under Penal Code section 1202.4 without determining her ability to pay under People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Dueñas).
In their brief on appeal, respondent argued the present appeal must be dismissed because appellant made no claim of error to the trial court, either at the time of sentencing or after, as required by Penal Code section 1237.2 (Section 1237.2). That section provides, "An appeal may not be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction on the ground of an error in the imposition or calculation of fines, penalty assessments, surcharges, fees, or costs unless the defendant first presents the claim in the trial court at the time of sentencing, or if the error is not discovered until after sentencing, the defendant first makes a motion for correction in the trial court, which may be made informally in writing. The trial court retains jurisdiction after a notice of appeal has been filed to correct any error in the imposition or calculation of fines, penalty assessments, surcharges, fees, or costs upon the defendant's request for correction. This section only applies in cases where the erroneous imposition or calculation of fines, penalty assessments, surcharges, fees, or costs are the sole issue on appeal."
In People v. Hall (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 502, the court of appeal held that Section 1237.2 requires dismissal of an appeal where the sole issue is alleged constitutional error under Dueñas. The court reasoned that "[S]ection 1237.2 broadly applies to an error in the imposition or calculation of fees. The plain language of the statute 'does not limit [its] reach only to situations where the fee simply did not apply at all or was a result of mathematical error.' [Citation.] Section 1237.2 applies any time a defendant claims the trial court wrongly imposed fines, penalty assessments, surcharges, fees, or costs without having first presented the claim in the trial court, and by the terms of the statute, the trial court retains jurisdiction pending appeal to correct any error." (Hall, at p. 504.) The court of appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that the appellant could assert her claim of error before the trial court. (Id. at p. 505.)
Respondent prominently argued in their brief on appeal that dismissal was required under Section 1237.2 and Hall. Nevertheless, appellant's reply brief address neither Section 1237.2 nor Hall's application of the statute in the context of a Dueñas claim. Appellant has effectively conceded dismissal of her appeal is required.
The appeal is dismissed.
/s/_________
SIMONS, J. We concur. /s/_________
JONES, P.J. /s/_________
BURNS, J.