From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Dunphy

California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division
Oct 24, 2008
No. B204018 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2008)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THOMAS J. DUNPHY, JR., Defendant and Appellant. B204018 California Court of Appeal, Second District, First Division October 24, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Ct. No. KA077422 Wade D. Olson, Commissioner.

Jeffrey S. Kross, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Keith H. Borjon and Sharlene A. Honnaka, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

WEISBERG, J.

Retired Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

When defendant Thomas J. Dunphy, Jr.’s probation was revoked in October 2007, the trial court imposed, among other things, a penalty assessment. Dunphy contends on appeal that the trial court erred both in the amount assessed ($110) and by failing to itemize each assessment and applicable statutory authority in the abstract of judgment. We agree that the trial court failed to itemize each assessment and also failed to state how it arrived at the total amount of $110, and will remand for an amended abstract of judgment that lists each assessment and surcharge separately and the total amount assessed.

“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. (People v. Sanchez (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1332 [laboratory fee]; People v. Hong (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1071, 1080 [restitution fine].)” (People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200.) We decline to speculate as to the trial court’s calculation and therefore remand with directions to correct the abstract by separately listing, with the statutory basis, all fines, fees and penalties imposed and the total amount thereof.

DISPOSITION

The cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to correct the abstract of judgment by separately listing, with the statutory basis, all fines, fees and penalties imposed and the total amount thereof. After the corrected abstract of judgment is prepared, the trial court is directed to forward a certified copy of the abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

We concur: MALLANO, P.J., ROTHSCHILD, J.


Summaries of

People v. Dunphy

California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division
Oct 24, 2008
No. B204018 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Dunphy

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THOMAS J. DUNPHY, JR., Defendant…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division

Date published: Oct 24, 2008

Citations

No. B204018 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2008)