Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Sup. Ct. No. F06093
MORRISON, J.
Defendant Dora Bocanegra slashed the tires of her brother-in-law’s car and was convicted of misdemeanor vandalism. She received three years’ informal probation and the trial court imposed a number of restitution fees and fines, including a $110 restitution fine and a $35 administrative “collection fee.”
On appeal, defendant takes issue with the imposition of the $35 collection fee. Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (l) authorizes the trial court to impose an administrative fee “not to exceed 10 percent” of the restitution amount ordered. (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (l), italics added.) Applying this provision to the $110 restitution fine, defendant contends the court had no authority to impose an administrative fee greater than $11.
Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (l) states in its entirety: “At its discretion, the board of supervisors of any county may impose a fee to cover the actual administrative cost of collecting the restitution fine, not to exceed 10 percent of the amount ordered to be paid, to be added to the restitution fine and included in the order of the court, the proceeds of which shall be deposited in the general fund of the county.”
The People concede the trial court should have imposed an administrative fee no greater than $11, but they contend defendant has forfeited her right to challenge the amount of the fine by failing to object in the trial court. We disagree: Since the challenge is to an arguably unauthorized sentence, defendant is entitled to raise it despite having not objected in the trial court to its imposition. (See People v. Chambers (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 819, 823 [defendant did not waive the issue of the improper imposition of a restitution fine under section 1202.4 by failing to object at trial because the imposition of the fine was an unauthorized sentence].)
We also note that the trial court neglected to comply with the requirement that all fines, fees, and penalties must be stated separately at sentencing, with the statutory basis specified for each; and the abstract of judgment--or, in this case the order of probation--must reflect these matters. (People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200.) “Although we recognize that a detailed recitation of all the fees, fines and penalties on the record may be tedious, California law does not authorize shortcuts.” (Ibid.)
Consequently, we shall remand the matter for the trial court to delineate the penalty assessments, surcharges, and fees imposed and to state the statutory basis therefore, and to amend the order of probation accordingly.
DISPOSITION
The matter is remanded to the trial court with directions to (l) separately state all fines, fees, and penalties imposed, with the appropriate statutory basis; (2) reduce to $11 the administrative fee assessed pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (l); and (3) amend the order of probation accordingly. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
We concur: SCOTLAND , P.J., CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.