From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Bridges

California Court of Appeals, Third District, Shasta
Jul 16, 2008
No. C056632 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 16, 2008)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CASSANDRA SUE BRIDGES, Defendant and Appellant. C056632 California Court of Appeal, Third District, Shasta July 16, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Super. Ct. Nos. 05F8932, 07F2283, 07F3651.

RAYE, J.

At one hearing, defendant Cassandra Sue Bridges was sentenced in four separate criminal cases; this appeal concerns three of them. In case No. 07F2283, defendant was convicted of one count of possessing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)); in case No. 073651, she was convicted of second degree commercial burglary (Pen. Code, § 459); and in case No. 058932, she was convicted of unlawfully taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)).

In the fourth case, Shasta County case No. 07F3021, defendant was convicted of 10 theft-related felonies. That case was the subject of a previous, separate appeal. (People v. Bridges (July 3, 2008, C056427) [nonpub. opn.].)

Defendant’s sole contention on appeal arises from a “lab fee” of $162.50 imposed pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11372.5, subdivision (a) by virtue of her conviction for possessing a controlled substance in case No. 07F2283. She contends the abstract of judgment must be amended “to show a breakdown of the fines, fees, and penalties associated with the criminal laboratory fee.”

Health and Safety Code section 11372.5, subdivision (a) states: “Every person who is convicted of a violation of Section . . . 11377 . . . shall pay a criminal laboratory analysis fee in the amount of fifty dollars ($50) for each separate offense. The court shall increase the total fine necessary to include this increment. [¶] With respect to those offenses specified in this subdivision for which a fine is not authorized by other provisions of law, the court shall, upon conviction, impose a fine in an amount not to exceed fifty dollars ($50), which shall constitute the increment prescribed by this section and which shall be in addition to any other penalty prescribed by law.”

Her claim of error is based on People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192 (High). In that case, this 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, italics added.) We 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.]’” (Id. at p. 1200.)

The People concede the error. We agree. Moreover, we note that the amended minute order of the sentencing proceeding properly sets forth the breakdown of all fees imposed “pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 11372.5” as follows: “$50.00 pursuant to Section 11372.5 of the Health and Safety Code, $50.00 pursuant to Section 1464 of the Penal Code, $10.00 pursuant to Section 1465.7 of the Penal Code, $5.00 pursuant to Section 76104.6 of the Government Code, $5.00 pursuant to Section 76104.7 of the Government Code, $5.00 pursuant to Section 76104.7 of the Government Code, $7.50 pursuant to section 70372 and $35.00 pursuant to Section 76245 of the Government Code.

This particular component of the fee -- $5.00 pursuant to section 76104.7 of the Government Code -- is set forth twice in the amended minute order but is properly counted only once.

This minute order, signed by the trial judge, constitutes a pronouncement of judgment. However, the breakdown must appear in the abstract of judgment. (High, supra, 119 Cal.App.4th at p. 1200.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to (1) amend the abstract of judgment to include the detailed recitation of all fines and fees imposed as set forth in the amended minute order of January 9, 2008, and (2) send a certified copy of the amended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

We concur: SCOTLAND, P.J., CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.


Summaries of

People v. Bridges

California Court of Appeals, Third District, Shasta
Jul 16, 2008
No. C056632 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 16, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Bridges

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CASSANDRA SUE BRIDGES, Defendant…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Third District, Shasta

Date published: Jul 16, 2008

Citations

No. C056632 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 16, 2008)