Filed 5/9/22 P. v. Contreras CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MARK LEE CONTRERAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

F082886

(Super. Ct. No. F20907020)

OPINION

THE COURT*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Francine 

Zepeda, Judge.

Rex Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney 

General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez and Amanda 

D. Cary, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P. J., Franson, J. and Meehan, J.
2.

Defendant Mark Lee Contreras pled no contest to physically assaulting his wife 

and was placed on probation. On appeal, defendant contends the probation supervision 

and report fees imposed by the trial court must be vacated pursuant to Assembly Bill 

No. 1869 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill 1869). We order the judgment 

modified, but affirm in all other respects.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1

On October 15, 2020, the Fresno County District Attorney filed a complaint 

charging defendant with corporal injury to a spouse (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a); 

count 1),2 and dissuading a witness from reporting a crime (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1); 

count 2). Defendant pled no contest to count 1 and, in exchange, the People dismissed 

count 2.

On June 4, 2021, the trial court placed defendant on formal probation for 

three years and ordered him to pay an annual $360 probation supervision fee and a $296 

probation report fee pursuant to former section 1203.1b.

On June 7, 2021, defendant filed an appeal.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, defendant contends he is entitled to relief from the unpaid portions of 

the probation supervision and report fees imposed under former section 1203.1b. The 

People concede and we agree.

Effective July 1, 2021, Assembly Bill 1869 “eliminate[d] the range of 

administrative fees that agencies and courts are authorized to impose to fund elements of 

the criminal legal system.” (People v. Clark (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 248, 259; 

Stats. 2020, ch. 92, § 2.) Among other things, Assembly Bill 1869 abrogated the court’s 

1 The underlying facts are not relevant to the issue on appeal and are therefore 

omitted.

2 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3.

authority to impose and collect probation supervision and report fees under former

section 1203.1b by adding section 1465.9. (Stats. 2020, ch. 92, § 62.) As relevant 

here, section 1465.9 provides that “[t]he balance of any court-imposed costs pursuant to 

[now former s]ection ... 1203.1b ... as [that] section[] read on June 30, 2021, shall be 

unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those costs shall 

be vacated.” (§ 1465.9, subd. (a).)

In People v. Clark, supra, 67 Cal.App.5th at p. 259, the court noted that Assembly 

Bill 1869 “is largely self-executing, and provides both backward-looking and 

forward-looking relief. [The defendant] may not be charged such fees, and to the extent 

he already has been charged them, any fees not yet paid are no longer collectible.” To 

the extent it is not self-executing, as when uncollectible fees are “phantom debt,” the

defendant may request we vacate the portion of the judgment imposing the debt “and if 

he or she does, we must grant it even though the pertinent fees are no longer collectible. 

The language of the statute is mandatory ....” (Ibid., italics omitted.)

Accordingly, we vacate any balances remaining unpaid as of July 1, 2021.

DISPOSITION

Any portion of the $360 annual probation supervision fee and the $296 probation 

report fee under former section 1203.1b that remains unpaid is vacated. In all other 

respects, the judgment is affirmed.