Filed 7/9/13 P. v. Wilcoxson CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

SAHRA ARLINE WILCOXSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A134801

 (Lake County

 Super. Ct. Nos. CR921179, CR923713, 

CR926806, CR928053)

Defendant Sahra Arline Wilcoxson contends the sentencing court failed to state 

valid statutory bases for all fines and penalty assessments imposed in connection with her 

guilty and no-contest pleas in four cases. She seeks remand for the court to specify the 

statutory bases for the fines and penalties imposed, and enter a final minute order 

reflecting its oral judgment. We correct the sentencing minute order in two respects, but 

find no basis to remand the case for further sentencing proceedings.

I. BACKGROUND

Defendant pleaded guilty or no contest in the four cases summarized below. The 

underlying facts are drawn from the probation officer‟s reports.

A. Case No. CR921179

On January 5, 2010, a sheriff‟s deputy, who recognized defendant, stopped her 

for driving on a suspended California driver‟s license. The deputy found 

methamphetamine in defendant‟s possession during a search of her vehicle. She was 

arrested for driving under the influence. 
2

On February 5, 2010, defendant pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine 

while on bail (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), driving while under the influence 

(Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)), and driving on a suspended license with prior 

convictions (Veh. Code, § 14601.1). On March 12, 2010, the trial court granted 

defendant probation. 

B. Case No. CR923713

On October 29, 2010, during a search following a vehicle stop, police found three 

plastic bags containing methamphetamine in defendant‟s possession. 

On November 8, 2011, defendant pleaded no contest to possession of 

methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a).) 

C. Case No. CR926806

On June 7, 2011, while on searchable probation, defendant was found in 

possession of a plastic bag of methamphetamine and a glass smoking pipe. 

On November 8, 2011, defendant pleaded no contest to an additional count of 

possession of methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a).) 

D. Case No. CR928053

On October 21, 2011, defendant was arrested and taken to the county jail. When 

warned that it was a felony to bring any controlled substances into the jail, defendant 

stated that she did not have any illegal items on her person. During a search at the jail, 

3.5 grams of methamphetamine were found in defendant‟s underwear. This offense was 

committed while defendant was on bail in three other cases. 

On November 8, 2011, defendant pleaded guilty to bringing a controlled substance 

and paraphernalia into a place where prisoners or inmates are located (Pen. Code, § 4573) 

and admitted one on-bail enhancement allegation (Pen. Code, § 12022.1). The guilty 

plea also constituted an admission to violation of probation in case No. CR921179. 

E. Sentencing

On December 20, 2011, the trial court sentenced defendant in each of the above 

cases to a total combined term of eight years. This was agreed to be an eight-year split 
3

sentence with four years in custody and four years‟ mandatory supervision. Defendant 

filed a timely notice of appeal, and was granted a certificate of probable cause. 

The court imposed fees and fines as follows: In case No. CR921179, the court 

imposed a new $600 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)), and a $600 

previously stayed restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.44). In each of the other three 

cases, a $200 restitution fine was imposed. (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b).) A court 

security fee of $90 and a criminal conviction assessment of $90 were imposed in case 

No. CR921179 ($30 per count), and court security fees of $40, and criminal conviction 

assessments of $30 were imposed in each of the other three cases. Lab fees and drug 

program fees, with penalty assessments, were imposed in cases Nos. CR921179, 

CR926806, and CR923713. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Contentions

Defendant contends the sentencing court failed to state valid statutory bases for all 

fees, fines, and penalty assessments imposed. She seeks remand for the court to identify 

the statutory bases for all financial impositions, and to prepare a final minute order 

reflecting its oral judgment. 

Defendant asserts no statutory bases were stated for (1) $450 in penalty 

assessments imposed in cases Nos. CR923713 and CR926806, on top of the $150 drug 

program fee authorized by Health and Safety Code section 11372.7; (2) $150 in penalty 

assessments imposed in cases Nos. CR923713 and CR926806, in addition to the $50 lab 

fee; (3) a $420 penalty assessment imposed in case No. CR921179, on top of the $150 

drug program fee; and (4) a $140 penalty assessment imposed in case No. CR921179, on 

top of the $50 lab fee.1 Defendant does not contend imposition of these penalty 

assessments or their amounts were unauthorized by law.

 

1

The minute order for December 20, 2011 incorrectly shows a lab fee and 

penalties imposed in case No. CR921179, totaling $200. The court‟s oral pronouncement 

of sentence imposed a lab fee of $50 and penalty assessments of $140 on that amount for 

a total of $190. The oral pronouncement of sentence is controlling. (See People v. 
4

In addition, defendant complains the court failed to state the statutory bases for a 

$600 fine and penalty assessment of $1,680 originally imposed in case No. CR921179 

and reimposed when she admitted a probation violation in that case on December 20, 

2011 by her guilty plea in case No. CR928053. The clerk‟s minutes reference Penal 

Code section 1202.5 for these impositions, but this statute applies only to specified 

robbery, burglary, and theft crimes. As the People concede, the improper reference to 

section 1202.5 should be stricken from the clerk‟s minutes of December 20, 2011. 

However, defendant does not maintain the fine and penalty assessment were unauthorized 

by law.

B. Drug Program and Lab Fee Penalty Assessments

At sentencing, the court cited Health and Safety Code sections 11372.5 and 

11372.7, respectively, in imposing the $50 lab fee and $150 drug program fee in each 

case. In addition it specified in each case the aggregate amount of the penalty 

assessments to be added to each fee and the combined total of the fee and penalty 

assessments. The court did not explain how the aggregate amount of the assessments had 

been determined in each instance or cite the statutes that authorized the imposition of 

penalties. Such an itemization at sentencing would have been quite time consuming. The 

six penalty assessments imposed in this case each derive from the combined effect of 

seven state statutes that directly impose or authorize counties to impose penalties 

earmarked for a variety of criminal justice-related purposes and funds. (See People v. 

Voit (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1373–1374 (Voit).)2 

 

Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385.) We shall order the minute order corrected to 

conform to it.

2

 The assessments are based on the following statutes: Penal Code section 1464, 

subdivision (a)(1) (imposing a $10 assessment per $10 of “every fine, penalty, or 

forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts for all criminal offenses,” with specified 

exceptions); Penal Code section 1465.7, subdivision (a) (20 percent state surcharge on the 

same base fine used to calculate the penalty assessed under § 1464); Government Code 

section 70372 (court construction penalty of $5 for $10 of base fine); Government Code 

section 76000, subdivisions (a), (e) (county penalty of $7 for every $10 of base fine, as 

applicable in Lake County); Government Code section 76000.5, subdivision (a)(1) 
5

Because these seven statutes all apply on a statewide or countywide basis, the 

same assessments would be made in every case in which a lab or drug program fee is 

imposed in Lake County, as long as the statutes or county ordinances authorized by them 

do not change.3 In our view, it would be impractical and unnecessary in these 

circumstances for a trial court to be required to separately itemize the dollar amounts of 

each of the seven applicable penalty assessments, and identify each of the authorizing 

statutes, every time a sentence triggering them is pronounced. In this case, that would 

have required the trial court to orally recite some 42 separate penalty assessments 

imposed in the three cases in which lab and drug fees were imposed. Because the same 

seven penalty assessment statutes apply countywide, defense counsel can readily 

determine from their aggregate amount whether the probation department has made an 

error in calculating them. Making the court go through the lengthy process of reciting the 

amount and statutory basis for each separate assessment is completely unnecessary as a 

matter of due process, and would be entirely counterproductive. The sheer volume of 

dollar amounts and statutes to be read off at sentencing would make it more difficult, not 

less difficult for counsel to notice errors, and would amplify the likelihood of error 

caused by the simple misreading of numbers.

The case law has recognized this is not necessary. (See Voit, supra, 

200 Cal.App.4th at p. 1373 [“We conclude that the trial court adequately pronounced 

judgment by imposing a specific fine and generally referring to the applicable penalty 

 

(county emergency medical fund, assessing $2 for every $10 of base fine if the county 

adopts a conforming ordinance); Government Code section 76104.6, subdivision (a)(1) 

(Proposition 69 penalty of $1 for every $10 of base fine); Government Code former 

section 76104.7, subdivision (a) (DNA fund penalty $3 for every $10 of base fine, raised 

to $4 in 2012).

3

The penalties assessed on top of the $50 lab fee and $150 drug program fees for 

defendant‟s first offense in case No. CR921179 were $10 and $30 lower, respectively, 

because the assessment rate under one of the applicable penalty statutes, Government 

Code section 76104.7, was raised from $1 per $10 in fines, penalties, and forfeitures to 

$3 per $10 after that offense was committed. (Stats. 2009–2010, 8th Ex. Sess., ch. 3, § 1, 

p. 283; see Voit, supra, 200 Cal.App.4th at p. 1374 [penalty assessments may not be 

imposed retroactively for offenses committed before their effective date].)
6

assessments”]; see also People v. Sharret (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 859, 864 [approving 

pronouncement of a laboratory fee and drug program fee “ „plus penalty assessment‟ ”].) 

People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, cited by defendant, is distinguishable in 

that the trial court in that case did not separately state the amounts of the underlying fee 

and penalty assessments but provided only a total sum for the “ „fee, together with 

surcharges and penalties.‟ ” (Id. at p. 1200.) While it might have been better practice for 

the minute order in this case to identify the penalty statutes applied, the trial court was 

not required to itemize those amounts and no purpose would be served by remanding for 

entry of a new minute order when there is no mystery or dispute about whether the 

penalties were authorized by law. (See Sharrett, at p. 864; People v. Eddards (2008) 

162 Cal.App.4th 712, 718.)

C. Fine and Penalty Assessment in Case No. CR921179

The probation officer‟s report in case No. CR921179 recommended that defendant 

be required to pay a fine of $600, plus a penalty assessment of $1,680, in installments to 

be established by the probation officer. By order of March 12, 2010, the court placed 

defendant on probation in that case and made the payment of these amounts a term of her 

probation. No appeal was taken in connection with that order. In connection with the 

four cases consolidated for sentencing, the probation department noted in its report 

defendant had done poorly in her probation in case No. CR921179 and had paid none of 

the required fines and fees. A supplemental report recommended defendant pay the 

previously ordered fine of $600, plus a penalty assessment of $1,680. The court 

reimposed that fine and assessment when she was sentenced in the consolidated cases on 

December 20, 2011. 

The trial court‟s March 12, 2010 order was an appealable final judgment. (Pen. 

Code, § 1237, subd. (a).) No appeal was taken from that order and the time to appeal it 

has lapsed. Defendant‟s challenge to the trial court‟s failure to identify a statutory basis 

for the fine and penalty assessment is therefore not cognizable on this appeal. (See 

People v. Silva (1966) 241 Cal.App.2d 80, 82–83.) We reject defendant‟s claim that 

reimposition of the fine and penalty in the 2011 proceedings must be considered a new 
7

judgment that starts a new time clock for taking an appeal. “[T]o „reimpose‟ a restitution 

fine is not to impose a new, prohibited second fine. Rather, to reimpose the fine is to 

confirm or acknowledge the same fine that previously had been imposed upon 

conviction.” (People v. Cropsey (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 961, 965.) 

III. DISPOSITION

The December 20, 2011 minute order entries for case No. CR921179 shall be 

corrected to (1) strike “per PC 1202.5” and (2) strike “Lab Fee of: $200.00 is imposed 

per HS11372.5” and substitute “Lab fee of $190 is imposed per Health and Safety Code 

section 11372.5, including penalty assessments.” In all other respects, the judgment is 

affirmed. 

_________________________

Margulies, Acting P.J.

We concur:

_________________________

Dondero, J.

_________________________

Banke, J.