1

Filed 6/30/15 In re C.O. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(San Joaquin)

----

In re C.O., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court 

Law.

C076684

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

C.O.,

Defendant and Appellant.

(Super. Ct. No. 70287)

The minor, C.O., brought a marijuana brownie to school and sold it to another 

student. The trial court adjudged him to be a ward of the court based on the minor’s 

violation of Health and Safety Code section 11360, subdivision (a), and placed him on 

formal probation. The trial court additionally ordered the minor to pay a fine of $267.50 

(including penalty assessments, surcharges, and fees) pursuant to Welfare and Institutions 
2

Code section 730.5 and Penal Code section 1464, to pay a restitution fine of $100 

pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6, subdivision (b)(1), and to pay a 

general fund fine of $100 pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 731, 

subdivision (a)(1).

1

 

The minor appeals, contending the trial court improperly imposed the $100 

general fund fine and the $267.50 fine as terms and conditions of the minor’s probation.2 

He asserts the fines and fees are collateral to the minor’s crime and must be imposed, if at 

all, by separate order; therefore, he requests remand to the trial court regarding the 

imposition of the fines and fees. The minor also contends the probation order must be 

corrected because it reflects a 10 percent collection fee for the restitution fine that was 

not orally pronounced by the trial court. To the extent these fines were imposed as

conditions of the minor’s probation, we conclude the probation order was erroneous, and 

we modify the judgment to reflect that the fines (other than the restitution fine) are 

ordered but not as conditions of the minor’s probation and order correction of the 

probation order. 

DISCUSSION

I

Imposition of Fines as Probation Conditions 

The minor contends the trial court improperly ordered the minor to pay fines and 

fees as terms of his probation. In support of his contention, the minor relies on 

authorities stating that, in adult criminal proceedings, fines and fees which are collateral 

 

1 The nature of the issues on appeal render any further factual recitation 

unnecessary. 

2 The People do not dispute that the fines were imposed as conditions of the minor’s 

probation. In our review of the record, it appears ambiguous on this point. However, 

given the lack of clarity, we will proceed on the assumption the parties have correctly 

interpreted the record in this regard. 
3

to a defendant’s crime may not be made conditions of probation in the absence of a 

statutory exception. (See, e.g., People v. Hall (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 889, 892; 

Brown v. Superior Court (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 313, 321-322; People v. O’Connell

(2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1062, 1068; People v. Washington (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 590, 

593-596.) The People agree that this is a correct statement of the law regarding adult 

criminal defendants, but argue that juvenile criminal defendants may be required to pay 

these fines and fees as probation conditions based on the court’s broad discretion in 

crafting probation conditions for minors. (See, e.g., In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 

875, 889, In re Francisco S. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 946, 953-954; In re R.V. (2009) 171 

Cal.App.4th 239, 246-247.) We conclude that absent a statutory exception, the same 

prohibition applicable to adult criminal defendants applies to preclude imposition of 

collateral fines as probation conditions for juveniles. 

Pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 730, subdivision (b), a juvenile 

court, when placing a minor on probation, “ ‘may impose and require any and all 

reasonable conditions that it may determine fitting and proper to the end that justice may 

be done and the reformation and rehabilitation of the ward enhanced.’ [Citation.] 

Consistent with this mandate, the juvenile court is recognized as having ‘ “broad 

discretion in formulating conditions of probation” ’ [citation], and the juvenile court’s 

imposition of any particular probation condition is reviewed for abuse of discretion 

[citation].” (In re D.G. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 47, 52.) Though adult criminal courts 

also have “ ‘broad discretion’ ” in formulating probation conditions, juvenile conditions 

“ ‘may be broader than those pertaining to adult offenders’ [citation]” because wards’ 

constitutional rights are more circumscribed, they are in greater need of guidance and 

supervision, and the court stands in the shoes of the parent in exercising jurisdiction over 

the minor. (Ibid.) Thus, conditions that would be improper for adult probationers may be 

permissible for minors. (Ibid.) 
4

Nonetheless, the court’s power to impose probation conditions on minors is not 

limitless. (In re D.G., supra, 187 Cal.App.4th at p. 52; see also In re Bernardino S. 

(1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 613, 622.) Rather, juvenile probation conditions are subject to the 

same three-part standard decreed in People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481. (In re D.G., 

supra, at p. 52.) That standard dictates that a probation condition is rendered invalid if it 

“ ‘(1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to 

conduct which is not in itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not 

reasonably related to future criminality . . . .’ ” (People v. Lent, supra, at p. 486; accord,

In re D.G., supra, at pp. 52-53.) 

In adult criminal cases, it has been repeatedly held that payment of collateral costs, 

including various fines and fees, may not be imposed as a condition of probation. (See, 

e.g., People v. Hart (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 902, 907; Brown v. Superior Court, supra, 

101 Cal.App.4th at pp. 321-322; People v. Hall, supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at p. 892.) 

Rather, such costs should be imposed as a separate order. (See Brown v. Superior Court, 

supra, at p. 322; People v. O’Connell, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at p. 1068.) The rationale 

applicable in adult criminal cases is equally applicable here. Such fines and fees are not 

related to the crime of which the minor was convicted, relate to conduct which is not 

criminal, and require conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality. 

Additionally, had the Legislature intended to permit the imposition of the fines 

authorized by Welfare and Institutions Code sections 730.5 and 731 as conditions of a 

minor’s probation it could have so stated. Indeed, in Welfare and Institutions Code 

section 730.6, subdivision (l), the Legislature specifically directed that payment of a 

restitution fine may be made a condition of a minor’s probation. The Legislature enacted 

no such authorizing provision as it relates to the county general fund fine prescribed in 

Welfare and Institutions Code section 731 or the fine and penalty assessment prescribed 

in Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.5 and Penal Code section 1464. The 

Legislature’s enactment of Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6, subdivision (l) 
5

demonstrates it knows how to authorize imposition of a fine as a condition of probation, 

and the lack of any similar provision with regard to the fines at issue here is telling. 

Accordingly, to the extent the trial court imposed the $267.50 fine (including 

Penal Code section 1464 surcharges and assessments) authorized by Welfare and 

Institutions Code section 730.5 and the $100 general fund fine authorized by Welfare and 

Institutions Code section 731 as conditions of the minor’s probation, those probation 

conditions are stricken. However, the order that the minor separately pay those fines 

remains intact as the fines themselves are statutorily authorized. 

II

Administrative Fee

The minute order reflects that the minor must pay a collection fee of 10 percent, 

not to exceed $25, for the restitution fine. The minor contends the minute order must be 

corrected to strike the 10 percent collection fee because it was not ordered by the trial 

court in its oral pronouncement of judgment. The People argue that though fee was not 

orally imposed, we must modify the judgment to impose the fee because the trial court’s 

failure to do so rendered the sentence unauthorized. We will order correction of the 

probation order. 

The minor is correct that the oral pronouncement is the actual rendition of the 

judgment, and the minutes and abstract cannot add anything substantive to the oral 

pronouncement. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185; People v. Zackery 

(2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 387-388.) But, when a trial court fails to impose a 

statutorily mandated fine or fee, the sentence is unauthorized, and we may correct the 

error on appeal. (People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 852-853; People v. Scott (1994) 

9 Cal.4th 331, 354.) 

Here, the trial court imposed a mandatory restitution fine of $100. (Welf. & Inst. 

Code, § 730.6, subd. (b)(1).) Where a county has imposed an administrative fee to cover 

the cost of collecting such a restitution fine, the trial court must order that the minor pay 
6

that fee, up to an additional 10 percent of the restitution fine. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 

730.6, subd. (q).) The People assert that the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors 

adopted such a fee in 1995, making it mandatory for the trial court to impose the fee. 

However, there is nothing in the record on appeal to allow us to verify this factual 

assertion and no request filed to permit us to judicially notice the existence of an order 

adopting such a fee. Therefore, the record before us does not demonstrate that the 

administrative fee was or should have been imposed by the trial court. Accordingly, we 

order the probation order corrected to strike the 10 percent administrative fee for 

collection of the restitution fine. 

DISPOSITION

The conditions of probation are modified to delete the requirement to pay the 

$267.50 fine authorized pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.5 and 

Penal Code section 1464 and the $100 general fund fine authorized pursuant to Welfare 

and Institutions Code section 731, however, the order that defendant pay such fines is 

affirmed. Additionally, we direct the clerk of the trial court to correct the probation order 

to reflect these modifications and to strike the 10 percent collection fee for the restitution 

fine. As modified, the probation order (judgment) is affirmed. 

 NICHOLSON , Acting P. J.

We concur:

 ROBIE , J.

 MURRAY , J.