Opinion
F081383
11-30-2021
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANGEL DURAN, Defendant and Appellant.
William D. Farber, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Michael A. Canzoneri and Clifford E. Zall, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County No. DF015151A. Robert S. Tafoya, Judge.
William D. Farber, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Michael A. Canzoneri and Clifford E. Zall, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 1
OPINION
THE COURT[*]
Angel Duran (defendant) pleaded no contest to four misdemeanor charges. The resulting sentence included monetary obligations totaling $4,032, which were later reduced to approximately $2,698. The trial court failed to identify the statutory basis for all fines, fees, and assessments-even after defendant's attorney made requests for clarification. The People concede the issues of error and remedy. We accept the concession and remand the matter for further proceedings.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On June 18, 2020, defendant entered into a plea agreement calling for the dismissal of a felony charge of attempting to elude police while operating a vehicle with willful or wanton disregard for the safety of people or property (Veh. Code, § 2800.2; count 1). He pleaded no contest to four misdemeanor charges: resisting a peace officer or emergency medical technician (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1); count 2); driving a motor vehicle despite the suspension or revocation of driving privileges because of a prior alcohol-related conviction (Veh. Code, § 14601.2, subd. (a); count 3); possession of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a); count 4); and attempting to elude a pursuing peace officer's motor vehicle (Veh. Code, § 2800.1; count 5).
Defendant was granted probation on all counts but ordered to serve 180 days in jail in relation to count 4. The trial court verbally imposed "a fine of $611" for count 2; "[$]2, 018" for count 3; "[$]611" for count 4; and "$611" for count 5. However, corresponding written orders indicated a "fine of $566 as to count 2" and listed an additional "$45 for accounts receivable fee." (Capitalization omitted.) The written orders further reflected an obligation to pay $181 in attorney fees. Accordingly, the minute order stated the "total amount of fine(s) plus fee(s)" were "$4,032.00." (Capitalization omitted.)
On July 6, 2020, defendant filed a notice of appeal. In January 2021, defendant's appellate counsel submitted a request to the trial court for "correction or amendment of the record and sentencing minutes to reflect the components of the fines imposed on 2 counts 2 through 5." (See Pen. Code, § 1237.2 [procedure for correcting errors regarding fines, fees, and assessments after notice of appeal has been filed].) The trial court responded by issuing new minute orders showing a "credit of $1,108.00 for reduction on fines." (Capitalization omitted.) Handwritten notes provided the following explanation for counts 2 through 5 (in chronological order):
“Base Fine”
“State Surcharge”
“Penalty Assessment”
“Restitution Fine”
Total
$60
$82
$174
$150
$466
$300
$130
$870
$150
$1,450
$60
$82
$174
$316
$60
$82
$174
$150
$466
In February 2021, appellate counsel sent a letter to the trial court requesting further clarification. In response, the trial court issued an amended minute order formally stating the information previously explained in handwriting. Appellant's opening brief was filed on March 24, 2021.
DISCUSSION
Case law holds "that penalty assessments must be (1) specified in the court's oral pronouncement of judgment, and (2) specifically listed in the abstract of judgment." (People v. Hamed(2Ol3) 221 Cal.App.4th928, 937, citingPeople v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200-1201.) "If the abstract does not specify the amount of each fine, the Department of Corrections cannot fulfill its statutory duty to collect and forward deductions from prisoner wages to the appropriate agency. [Citation.] At a minimum, the inclusion of all fines and fees in the abstract may assist state and local agencies in their collection efforts." (High, at p. 1200.) More recent cases explicitly require trial courts "to specify the amount and statutory basis for each fine, fee, and penalty assessment...." (People v. Hartley (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 620, 637, italics added; 3 accord, People v. Fromuth (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 91, 114 ["Trial courts are required to 'specify[] the statutory bases of all fees, fines, and penalties' imposed on a defendant"].)
In addition to seeking clarification of his financial obligations, defendant assigns error to the apparent imposition of multiple restitution fines pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4. (See id, subd. (b) ["If the person is convicted of a misdemeanor, the fine shall not be less than one hundred fifty dollars ($150)"].) The People agree with defendant on both issues and conclude the matter must be remanded for resentencing. We accept the concession. (See People v. Sencion (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 480, 483 [concluding "it was error to impose a restitution fine and a parole revocation restitution fine as to each count"]; People v. Eddards (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 712, 717 [accepting People's concession that "the matter must be remanded to the trial court to enable it to specify the statutory bases for the imposition of all fines and fees"]; People v. Holmes (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 539, 547 [holding "a restitution fine is not imposed on 'each count' but instead one fine is imposed taking into account all the offenses in the proceeding"].)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed as to defendant's convictions and sentence except with regard to fines, fees, and assessments. The matter is remanded for resentencing as to defendant's financial obligations. On remand, the trial court shall prepare an order specifying the statutory basis for all fines, fees, and/or assessments imposed upon defendant. 4
[*]Before Franson, Acting P. J., Peña, J. and Snauffer, J.