1

Filed 3/8/16 P. v

. Garcia 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

(Placer)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

TERESA BELLEN GARCIA,

Defendant and Appellant. C078191

(Super. Ct. No. 62125105B)

Defendant Teresa Bellen Garcia appeals from the judgment entered following her

no contest plea to possessing methamphetamine for sale

. The trial court suspended

imposition of sentence and place d defendant on probation for three years on the

condition, among others, that she serve 180 days in county jail. The trial court also

imposed various fines, fee s, and penalty assessments in the aggregate amount o f $3,149

.

On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred by failing to specify the

statutory basis for each fine

, fee , and penalty assessment imposed. We agree. Defendant

further contends the trial court erred by failing to s pecify which fines, fees, and penalty2

assessments are a condition of probation. As we explain below

, this is not necessary.

We shall remand this matter to the trial court with directions to prepare an amend ed

probation order specifying the statutory basis for each fine, fee , and penalty assessment

imposed.

DISCUSSION

I

Statutory Bases For Fines, Fees, A nd Penalt y Assessments Imposed

In People v. Eddards (2008) 162 Cal. App.4th 712 , we held a probationary order

must specify “the statutory bases of all fees, fines and pena lties imposed upon

defendant.” ( Id . at p. 718 .) D efendant contends, and t he People agree

, the matter must

be remanded because the trial court’s probation order does not comply with Eddards

.

We agree

. The probation order omits the statutory basis for the base fine as well as the

st atutory bases for multiple penalty assessments and fees. Accordingly, the trial court

must prepare a new probation order.

II

Fines, Fees, A nd Penalty Assessments A s Probati on Conditions

In People v. Kim (2011) 193 Cal. App.4th 8 36, the appellate court held that fines

and fees tha t are collateral to a defendant’ s crime may not be made conditions of

probation in the absence of a statutory exception. ( Id . at p p. 842

- 843.) Defendant

contends that remand is appropriate because the trial court failed to specify which fines,

fees, and penalty assessments are a condition of probation. The People do not object to

the matter being remanded for the clarification defenda nt seeks

.

We conclude that remand on this basis is not warranted. The probation order is

divided into separate sections , including several sections setting forth the various terms

and conditions of defendant’s probation. The re are no fines, fees, or p enalty assessments

listed in any of the se sections . Rather, the fines, fees, and penalty assessments are set

forth in a section entitled “RESTITUTION, FINES AND FEES.” Having reviewed the3

reco rd, it is clear to us that no fine, fee, or penalty assessment imposed by the trial court

is a condition of defendant’ s probation.

DISPOSITION

T his matter is remanded to the trial court

, which is directed to amend the probation

order to specify the statutory basis for each fine, fee, and penalty assessment imposed. A

copy of the new ord er shall be provided to the Placer County Sheriff’ s Department and

the Chief Probation Officer of Placer County. As modified, the trial court’s probation

order is affirmed

.

/s/

Robie, Acting P. J.

We concur:

/s/

Butz, J.

/s/

Renner, J.