Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Originally charged in a single complaint with 57 crimes, defendant Cassandra Sue Bridges entered a negotiated plea of guilty to 10 theft-related felonies in case No. 07F3021.
NICHOLSON, J.
Her sole contention on appeal is that the abstract of judgment must be corrected “to show a breakdown of the fines, fees, and penalties associated with the court security fee and property theft fine.” This contention has some merit.
First, we address the People’s assertion defendant has waived her right to make this appeal. The written plea form, under the heading “WAIVER OF APPELLATE RIGHTS,” in a paragraph initialed by defendant to show her understanding of that provision, states, “I hereby waive and give up my right to appeal from the sentence I will receive in this case.” “Because [defendant] has waived her right to appeal,” the People contend, “the instant appeal should be dismissed.”
We are unpersuaded. Her claim of error is based on People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192. In that case, the court remanded with directions that the trial court, inter alia, “separately list, with the statutory basis, all fines, fees and penalties imposed” and prepare an amended abstract of judgment reflecting this and other modifications to the judgment ordered. (Id. at p. 1201.) The court explained: “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. All fines and fees must be set forth in the abstract of judgment. [Citations.] . . . At a minimum, the inclusion of all fines and fees in the abstract may assist state and local agencies in their collection efforts. [Citation.] Thus, even where the Department of Corrections has no statutory obligation to collect a particular fee, . . . the fee must be included in the abstract of judgment. [Citation.] . . . ‘[A] fine . . . is part of the judgment which the abstract must “‘digest or summarize.’” [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 1200.)
Defendant’s appeal cannot fairly be characterized as an appeal from her sentence: she seeks relief whose purpose is to “assist state and local agencies in their collection efforts.” (People v. High, supra, 119 Cal.App.4th at p. 1200.) There was no waiver.
On the merits, defendant takes issue with the abstract’s recitation of the theft-related fine imposed under Penal Code section 1202.5 and the court security fee imposed pursuant to section 1465.8.
Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.
There was no error in the recitation of the court security fee. The abstract of judgment states that defendant is ordered to “pay a $260.00 court security fee per PC 1465.8(A)(1).” Section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1) states that “a fee of twenty dollars ($20) shall be imposed on every conviction for a criminal offense.” The imposition of this fee is mandatory. (See People v. Talibdeen (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1151, 1153.) The abstract of judgment shows she was sentenced on 13 criminal offenses in the same proceeding. Thirteen times $20 equals is $260. No further breakdown of this fee is required.
In the instant action, defendant was convicted of 10 offenses, and she was also convicted of one offense each in case Nos. 07F2283, 07F3651, and 05F8932.
But defendant also challenges as inadequate the recitation of the statutory basis for the “fine of $32.50 per PC 1202.5,” which the abstract of judgment states was imposed. Section 1202.5, subdivision (a) states: “In any case in which a defendant is convicted of any of the offenses enumerated in Section . . . 459, . . . the court shall order the defendant to pay a fine of ten dollars ($10) in addition to any other penalty or fine imposed. . . .” A $10 fine under this section “can be imposed only once in a case, rather than for each conviction in a case.” (People v. Crittle (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 368, 369-370.) Here, defendant was convicted of violating section 459 by committing second degree commercial burglary in the instant case, No. 07F3021, and also in case No. 07F3651. Her convictions in these two cases explains $20 of the $32.50 which the abstract purports to impose under section 1202.5, although the trial court’s oral statement that “one [section 1202.5] assessment will do” suggests it may have intended to impose only one fine “[i]f the court determines that the defendant has the ability to pay all or part of the fine, the court shall set the amount to be reimbursed and order the defendant to pay that sum to the county . . . .” (§ 1202.5, subd. (a).)
Thus, the basis for the fine is unclear: either the court’s arithmetic is erroneous or, perhaps, the fine purportedly imposed under section 1202.5 actually includes a fine or fee imposed under another statute. As we’ve explained above, People v. High, supra, 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, requires the abstract to set forth all fines and fees and their statutory bases. Remand is required.
DISPOSITION
The $32.50 fine imposed pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.5 is vacated, and the judgment is otherwise affirmed. The matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings with respect to said fine.
We concur: SCOTLAND, P.J. CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.