From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Silveira

California Court of Appeals, Third District, Lassen
Mar 18, 2008
No. C055573 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 18, 2008)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SONYA LEE SILVEIRA, Defendant and Appellant. C055573 California Court of Appeal, Third District, Lassen March 18, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Super. Ct. No. CR023163

SIMS, Acting P.J.

Defendant Sonya Lee Silveira pled guilty to driving under the influence in violation of Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (a), and admitted three prior convictions in exchange for dismissal of all remaining charges and an agreement that she serve no immediate state prison time. The court granted defendant three years’ probation pursuant to specified terms and conditions, including an unspecified fine in the amount of $2,128.

Undesignated statutory references are to the Vehicle Code.

On appeal, defendant contends, and the People concede, the trial court’s failure to provide a statutory basis for the $2,128 fine requires remand for resentencing and correction of the court’s order. We shall remand the matter to the trial court for clarification of the $2,128 fine imposed and correction of its order, and shall affirm the judgment in all other respects.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Police pulled defendant over in a traffic stop for suspected involvement in an altercation. Defendant was found to be under the influence of alcohol and driving on a suspended or revoked license.

Defendant was charged with driving under the influence in violation of section 23152, subdivision (a) (Count I), driving with a blood alcohol content of .08 percent or more in violation of section 23152, subdivision (b) (Count II), and driving with a suspended or revoked license in violation of section 14601.1, subdivision (a) (Count III). The information also alleged that defendant suffered three prior convictions for driving under the influence.

As part of a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to Count I and admitted all three prior convictions in exchange for dismissal of Counts II and III and no immediate state prison time.

The court suspended imposition of sentence and granted defendant three years’ probation, including the condition that she serve 365 days in county jail. The court imposed a fine in the amount of $2,128, to “include[] a penalty assessment fine of $200 paid to the restitution fund plus a 10% administrative fee,” along with a suspended $200 probation revocation fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.44), a $20 monthly probation supervision fee (Pen. Code, § 1203.1b), a $20 court security fee (Pen. Code, § 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), a $330 fee for the presentence investigation report (Pen. Code, § 1203.1b) and a booking fee in the amount of $138.06.

Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. Her request for certificate of probable cause was denied.

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends the trial court failed to articulate the statutory basis for the $2,128 fine, and that the court’s minute order is not consistent with its pronouncement of judgment as to whether that fine includes the $200 restitution fine and 10 percent administrative fee. The People find merit in defendant’s contention, as do we.

Among the fines the court imposed at the sentencing hearing was an unidentified fine in the amount of $2,128 which, according to the court, “includes a penalty assessment fine of $200 paid to the restitution fund plus a 10% administrative fee.” Although that fine was recommended by probation, the probation report gives no statutory basis for it either. The matter is further complicated by the fact that the court’s minute order differs from its pronouncement of judgment in that the minute order reflects the $200 restitution fine and the 10 percent administrative fee are in addition to, not included as part of, the $2,128 fine.

As we explained in People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192 at page 1200, “[a]lthough 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.” Accordingly, we direct the trial court to separately state each and every fee, fine and/or penalty included in the $2,128 fine and the statutory basis therefor. In doing so, the trial court should clarify whether or not the $200 restitution fine pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4 is included in that amount.

DISPOSITION

Defendant’s conviction is affirmed, as is the judgment, with the exception of the $2,128 fine, which amount is vacated and remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

We concur: RAYE , J., ROBIE , J.


Summaries of

People v. Silveira

California Court of Appeals, Third District, Lassen
Mar 18, 2008
No. C055573 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 18, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Silveira

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SONYA LEE SILVEIRA, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Third District, Lassen

Date published: Mar 18, 2008

Citations

No. C055573 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 18, 2008)