Filed 9/30/16 P. v. Ramirez CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MORRIS RAMIREZ,

 Defendant and Appellant.

 G052845

 (Super. Ct. No. 15CF0826)

 O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gassia 

Apkarian, Judge. Affirmed as modified.

Ava R. Stralla, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant 

Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal and 

Elizabeth M. Kuchar, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

THE COURT:

*

Defendant Morris Ramirez pleaded guilty to: (1) one count of felony 

resisting arrest (Pen. Code, § 69); (2) two counts of misdemeanor resisting arrest (Pen. 

Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)); and (3) one count of misdemeanor public intoxication (Pen.

Code, § 647, subd. (f)). The court struck a prior strike in the interest of justice. The 

court then suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on three years of 

formal probation, with 364 days time already served in Orange County jail (182 actual 

time, 182 good time/work time credits). 

Among various fines and fees imposed at sentencing, the court ordered 

defendant: (1) to pay a court operations assessment of $40 per conviction (Pen. Code, 

§ 1465.8); and (2) to pay a court facilities assessment of $30 per conviction (Gov. Code, 

§ 70373, subd. (a)(1)). 

The sole issue raised on appeal by defendant is whether the judgment

should be modified to reflect that the court operations assessment and the court facilities 

assessment are separate orders and not conditions of probation. The Attorney General 

concedes that the judgment should be modified because the court’s oral pronouncement 

of judgment and the standard form utilized in this case (“Terms and Conditions of Felony 

Probation and Mandatory Supervision”) both create the misimpression that paying the

court assessments ($280 total) is a condition of probation. 

We agree with the parties’ analysis. These assessments should not be 

imposed as conditions of probation because they are collateral to the crime and not 

oriented toward rehabilitation. (People v. Kim (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 836, 843; People 

v. Pacheco (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1392, 1402-1403, disapproved on other grounds in 

People v. Trujillo (2015) 60 Cal.4th 850, 858, fn. 5.) 

 

*

 Before O’Leary, P. J., Bedsworth, J., and Moore, J.
3

DISPOSITION

The judgment is modified to reflect that the $40 per conviction court 

operations assessment (Pen. Code, § 1465.8) and the $30 per conviction court facilities 

assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373, subd. (a)(1)) are separate orders and not conditions of 

probation. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.