1 

Filed 10/14/14 P. v. Dumont 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 

(El Dorado) 

---- 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

RALPH EUGENE DUMONT, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

C074622 

(Super. Ct. No. P12CRF0521) 

 A jury found defendant Ralph Eugene Dumont guilty of driving under the 

influence of alcohol (DUI) and driving with a blood-alcohol content of 0.08 percent or 

greater and found true an allegation that he had a blood-alcohol level of 0.15 percent or 

greater. The trial court sustained a strike, three prior prison terms, and two prior DUI 

conviction allegations. Defendant was sentenced to nine years eight months in state 

prison with various fines and fees, including a $2,374 fine, imposed. The fine was later 

modified to $2,277. 
2 

 On appeal, defendant contends there are numerous errors in the penalties, fees, and 

assessments associated with the fine. Agreeing with defendant, we shall modify the 

penalties, fees, and assessments associated with the base fine. 

BACKGROUND1

 At sentencing, the trial court imposed “a court fine and penalties and assessments 

in the amount of $2,374” on the DUI conviction (DUI fine). The abstract of judgment 

listed the fine but did not separately list the penalties, fees, and assessments associated 

with it. 

 During the pendency of this appeal, defendant’s appellate counsel sent a letter to 

the trial court on November 18, 2013, requesting the trial court provide the statutory basis 

for certain fines, fees, and assessments, reconsider the restitution and parole revocation 

fines, and correct errors in the abstract. The trial court modified the restitution and parole 

revocation fines, modified the DUI fine to $2,277, issued what appeared to be a printout 

of a computer program for calculating various fines, fees, penalties, and assessments, and 

issued an amended abstract of judgment. 

 On January 8, 2014, appellate counsel again requested clarification of the DUI 

fine. The trial court issued a table outlining the statutory basis for the fine and associated 

fees, assessments, and penalties. 

 Appellate counsel requested further clarification on January 30, 2014. The trial 

court promulgated another table. (See appendix.) 

DISCUSSION 

 Defendant identifies numerous errors with the penalties, fees, and assessments 

associated with the base fine. With one minor exception, the People agree. We agree 

with defendant. 

 

1 We dispense with a summary of the facts of defendant’s crimes as they are 

unnecessary to resolve this appeal. 
3 

 Defendant first notes the trial court misstated the statutory source of the base fine. 

The purported source of the base fine, Penal Code2 section 1463.001, does not establish 

any fine but instead sets forth the procedures for accounting for base fines. Vehicle Code 

section 23550, subdivision (a) mandates a fine from $390 to $1,000 for any defendant 

who is convicted of a DUI with three prior DUI convictions within the last 10 years. 

Defendant and the People assert this is the statutory source of the base fine. We agree 

and we shall direct the trial court to state as such in the amended abstract. 

 Next, defendant finds that the amounts incorporated into the DUI fine pursuant to 

sections 1463.14, 1463.16, and 1463.18 are improper as those provisions address the 

distribution of the DUI base fine into various categories rather than authorizing additional 

fines to be paid by defendant. The People agree regarding sections 1463.16 and 1463.18, 

but note that section 1463.14, subdivision (b) gives counties the discretion to impose an 

alcohol testing penalty of no more than $50 when a defendant is convicted pursuant to 

Vehicle Code sections 23152 or 23153. 

 Section 1463.16, subdivision (a) mandates that $50 from every DUI fine be 

deposited in a special account for the county’s alcoholism program. Section 1463.18, 

subdivision (a)(1) mandates the transfer of $20 from every DUI fine to the state 

restitution fund. Since neither provision authorizes any additional fine, we shall strike 

these amounts from the DUI fine calculus. 

 Section 1463.14, subdivision (a) mandates the transfer of $50 from every DUI fine 

to a special account to pay for blood-alcohol tests. As the People point out, section 

1463.14, subdivision (b) of this statute allows a county to impose an additional penalty of 

up to $50 on defendants convicted of DUI to offset the cost of testing for alcohol content. 

This provision requires the county board of supervisors to authorize the penalty by 

 

2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 
4 

resolution, and “shall be imposed only in those instances where the defendant has the 

ability to pay.” Since the trial court made no finding defendant had the ability to pay and 

there is no evidence El Dorado County authorized this penalty, we conclude the trial 

court imposed a $50 fee pursuant to subdivision (a) of section 1463.14. This fee is also 

unauthorized and we shall therefore strike it. 

 The next error found by defendant is the section 1464 penalty assessment of $510. 

Section 1464, subdivision (a)(1) mandates an assessment of “ten dollars ($10) for every 

ten dollars ($10), or part of ten dollars ($10), upon every fine, penalty, or forfeiture 

imposed and collected by the courts for all criminal offenses” other than certain parking 

offenses. The $510 assessment is based on the trial court mistakenly adding the 

unauthorized amount of $120 under sections 1463.14, 1464.16, and 1463.18 to the $390 

base fine. We shall modify the section 1464 penalty assessment to $390. 

 Government Code section 76000, subdivision (a)(1) authorizes a county penalty 

assessment of $7 for every $10 of fine, penalty or forfeiture imposed. As applied to the 

DUI fine, this authorizes a $273 penalty rather than three separate assessments of 

$127.50, $25.50, and $102. (See appendix.) We shall modify the penalty to $273. 

 The Government Code section 76104.1 fine of $102 is unauthorized, as the statute 

was repealed by its own terms on January 1, 2014, and applied only to fines, fees, and 

assessments in Santa Barbara County. We shall strike this fine. 

 Government Code section 76104.6 imposes a fee of $1 for every $10 of every fine 

to help implement the DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act. 

The trial court erroneously imposed a $51 fee rather than $39, or $1 for every $10 of the 

$390 base DUI fine. We shall modify the fee accordingly. 

 The trial court imposed a Government Code section 76104.7, subdivision (a) DNA 

identification fund penalty of $102. This provision imposes a penalty assessment of $4 

for every $10 on the base fine. Since the base fine is $390, the assessment should be 

$156. We shall modify the penalty to this amount. 
5 

 Government Code section 70372, subdivision (a)(1) establishes a state court 

construction penalty of $5 for every $10 on the base fine. Taking the $390 base fine, this 

should be $195. The trial court imposed a “GC 70372(a) . . . ICNA assessment 2/10” of 

$102 and a “FC70372(a) . . . State Facilities Surcharge” of $153. Finding that these both 

refer to the Government Code section 70372 penalty, we shall modify them to a single 

penalty of $195. 

 The trial court imposed a section 1465.7, subdivision (a) surcharge of $102. 

Section 1465.7 authorizes a 20 percent state surcharge on the base fine. As defendant 

notes, the proper amount is $78 and we shall modify the surcharge accordingly. 

 Defendant also correctly claims the trial court erred in imposing a $50 assessment 

pursuant to section 1463.25. This provision addresses allocation of “the moneys from 

alcohol abuse education and prevention penalty assessments collected pursuant to Section 

23196 of the Vehicle Code” and does not impose any additional fine, fee, penalty, or 

assessment. (§ 1463.25.) We shall strike the $50 “assessment.” 

 The trial court’s next error is the imposition of a $120 misdemeanor restitution 

fine pursuant to section 1202.4. At the time of defendant’s August 1, 2012 crimes, 

section 1202.4 authorized a minimum restitution fine of $120 for misdemeanors and $240 

for felonies. (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)(1).) Since defendant was convicted of felonies and the 

trial court imposed the felony restitution fine, the misdemeanor fine was unauthorized 

and we shall therefore strike it. 

 Finally, defendant finds an error in the “AB1273” emergency medical transport 

penalty. The proper statutory basis is Government Code section 76000.10, subdivisions 

(a) and (c)(1), the Emergency Medical Transportation Act, which imposes a $4 penalty 

for every conviction for a Vehicle Code violation. We agree with defendant that the trial 

court intended to impose this penalty, which was enacted by Assembly Bill No. 2173, 

effective January 1, 2011. (Stats. 2010, ch. 547, § 2.) 
6 

DISPOSITION 

 The amounts imposed pursuant to sections 1463.14, 1463.16, 1463.18, 1202.4, 

subdivision (b)(1), 1463.25, and Government Code section 76104.1 are stricken. 

Penalties, fees, and assessments are modified as follows: Section 1464 to $390, section 

1465.7 to $78, Government Code section 76000 to $273, Government Code section 

76104.6 to $39, Government Code section 76104.7 to $156, and Government Code 

section 70372 to $195. As modified, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court shall 

prepare an amended abstract of judgment making these modifications. The trial court is 

directed to state the correct basis for the $390 fine as “VC 23550(a)” and $4 penalty as 

“Gov Code 76000.10” and to forward a certified copy of the amended abstract to the 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 

 ROBIE , Acting P. J. 

We concur: 

 BUTZ , J. 

 MURRAY , J. 
7 

DUI VC 23152-3

Statute Authority

Incorporated in DUI Fine

AS OF 07/16/2012*

PC1463.001 

PC1463.14

S-M

ALP

Agency Major (base amount)

Alcohol Lab Fee

390.00 (range)

50.00

PC1463.16 ADP Alcohol/Drug Program 50.00

PC1463.18 RDI DUI Restitution 20.00

510.00

PC1464 SPE State Penalty 510.00

GC76000 JCF Jailhouse Construction 127.50

GC76000 AFF Automated Fingerprint 25.50

GC76000 EMF Emergency Medical Fund 102.00

GC76104.1 EMS Additional EMS eff 8-07 102.00

GC76104.6 DNA DNA 51.00

GC76104.7 SON State DNA additional 102.00

GC76104.6 SD3 State DNA additional 102.00

FC70372(a) SFC State Facilities Surcharge 153.00

PC1465.7 SCH Surcharge 102.00

GC70372(a) ICN ICNA assessment 2/10 102.00

GC70373 ICM ICNA Surcharge per Chg Conv 30.00

PC1465.8(a) CSA Court Security Assmt PC 1465.8a 40.00

PC1463.25 AEP Alcohol Education PC 1463.25 50.00

Fines Charged Separately 2,109.00

PC1202.4 RMI Misdemeanor Restitution PC 1202.4 120.00

VC40508.6(A) DMV DMV Fees VC 40508.6 10.00

PC1205 ADM Admin Fees PC 1205 60.00

AB1273 EMA Emergency Medical Transport 4.00

TOTAL 2,303.00

* Defendant’s offenses occurred on August 1. 2012 

APPENDIX