Filed 3/6/15 P. v. Trujillo CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MICHAEL JAMES TRUJILLO,

Defendant and Appellant.

 H040865

 (Santa Clara County

 Super. Ct. No. C1360776)

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant Michael James Trujillo pleaded no contest to possession of 

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

burglar’s tools (Pen. Code, § 466),1and misdemeanor possession of controlled substance 

paraphernalia (former Health & Saf. Code, § 11364.1). He also admitted that he had 

served four prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court found that defendant 

had one prior strike (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). After granting defendant’s Romero

motion,2the court sentenced defendant to two years in prison and ordered him to pay a 

restitution fine of $240 plus an administrative fee of 10 percent for a total of $264.

 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

2

People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.
2

On appeal, defendant contends that the 10 percent administrative fee, or $24, is 

unauthorized and should be stricken. For reasons that we will explain, we will affirm the 

judgment but order the correction of clerical errors in the sentencing minutes and the 

abstract of judgment.

II. BACKGROUND

In 2013, defendant was charged by complaint with possession of 

methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a); count 1), possession of 

burglar’s tools (§ 466; count 2, a misdemeanor), and possession of controlled substance 

paraphernalia (former Health & Saf. Code, § 11364.1; count 3, a misdemeanor). The 

complaint further alleged that he had a prior strike (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12), and 

that he had served four prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).

In January 2014, defendant pleaded no contest to all three counts and admitted that 

he had served four prior prison terms. Defendant waived his right to a jury trial on the 

issue of whether he had a prior strike.

On March 14, 2014, the trial court found that defendant had a prior conviction that 

qualified as a strike. Upon defendant’s oral Romero motion, the court struck the strike. 

The court sentenced defendant to two years in prison for the felony count and imposed 

and then stayed the one-year punishment for each of his four prison priors. The court 

ordered concurrent 180-day terms for the misdemeanor counts. The court also ordered 

defendant to pay various amounts, including a restitution fine of $240 plus an 

administrative fee of 10 percent for a total of $264. The minutes from the sentencing 

hearing and the abstract of judgment, however, reflect a total restitution fine of $254.

III. DISCUSSION

Defendant contends that the 10 percent administrative fee, or $24, added by the 

trial court to the restitution fine is unauthorized when a defendant, such as him, is 

sentenced to prison. He argues that when a defendant is placed on probation and ordered 

to pay a restitution fine as a condition of probation, the county is entitled to recover its 
3

administrative costs of collecting the fine pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (l). 

According to defendant, when a person is sentenced to prison, the restitution fine is 

collected by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation from the prisoner’s trust 

account (see § 2085.5, subd. (a)), and therefore the county will not incur any costs in 

collecting the fine from a defendant sentenced to prison. Defendant further contends that 

he has not waived his challenge to the administrative fee by failing to raise it below.

The Attorney General contends that defendant has waived his claim by failing to 

object in the trial court. The Attorney General further contends that the court properly 

imposed the fee.

Without deciding whether defendant has forfeited his claim by failing to raise it 

below, we determine that defendant fails to establish that the administrative fee is 

unauthorized in this case.

Section 1202.4, subdivision (b) provides for the imposition of restitution fine in 

every case where a person is convicted of a crime. Subdivision (l) of section 1202.4 

authorizes the imposition of an administrative fee as follows: “At its discretion, the 

board of supervisors of a county may impose a fee to cover the actual administrative cost 

of collecting the restitution fine, not to exceed 10 percent of the amount ordered to be 

paid, to be added to the restitution fine and included in the order of the court, the 

proceeds of which shall be deposited in the general fund of the county.”

Section 2085.5, subdivision (a) states in relevant part: “In any case in which a 

prisoner owes a restitution fine imposed pursuant to . . . subdivision (b) of 

Section 1202.4, the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall 

deduct a minimum of 20 percent or the balance owing on the fine amount, whichever is 

less, up to a maximum of 50 percent from the wages and trust account deposits of a 

prisoner, unless prohibited by federal law, and shall transfer that amount to the California 

Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board for deposit in the Restitution Fund 
4

in the State Treasury. The amount deducted shall be credited against the amount owing 

on the fine. The sentencing court shall be provided a record of the payments.”

Defendant argues that the administrative fee in subdivision (l) of section 1202.4 

may not be added to the restitution fine in his case because the county will not incur any 

collection costs with respect to the ordered restitution fine. Defendant’s argument is 

based on the collection costs specific to his case. However, consideration of the 

particular collection costs in an individual defendant’s case is inconsistent with the 

statutorily-provided procedure for adding an administrative fee to a restitution fine. 

Pursuant to subdivision (l) of section 1202.4, when a county board of supervisors has 

imposed the administrative fee, the trial court must add the administrative fee to the 

restitution fine at the time of sentencing. The statute does not require proof in an 

individual case that the county will incur collection costs or the amount of those costs 

before the trial court orders the administrative fee. The trial court must order the fee at 

the time of the defendant’s sentencing, which is necessarily before the county has 

incurred any collection costs as to a defendant’s restitution fine.

Further, although section 2085.5, subdivision (a) requires that the Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation deduct a percentage “from the wages and trust account 

deposits of a prisoner” and that the amount be credited against the restitution fine, 

defendant fails to show that this is the only means by which the restitution fine may be 

collected once a defendant is sentenced to prison, or that a county will otherwise be 

uninvolved in collecting the restitution fine for a defendant sentenced to prison. 

Defendant also does not identify a statutory exemption barring the trial court from adding 

an administrative fee pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (l) where a defendant is 

sentenced to prison. Consequently, based on the limited legal authority cited by 

defendant, and in the absence of evidence presented below regarding, for example, the 

circumstances of the county’s collection of restitution fines, we are not persuaded by 

defendant’s contention that a prison sentence necessarily precludes restitution fine 
5

collection costs or an administrative fee under section 1202.4, subdivision (l) by the 

county.

Finally, we observe that defendant does not dispute that the Santa Clara County 

Board of Supervisors has imposed a 10 percent administrative fee under subdivision (l) of 

section 1202.4. Pursuant to this subdivision, we determine that the trial court was 

authorized to order defendant to pay an administrative fee of $24 on the $240 restitution 

fine. (See People v. Robertson (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 206, 210 [stating that § 1202.4, 

subd. (l) “clearly and unambiguously provides for a 10 percent administrative fee to be 

imposed on any ‘restitution fine’ ordered pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (b)”].) 

We will therefore order the minutes from the sentencing hearing and the abstract of 

judgment, both of which reflect a total restitution fine of $254 rather than $264, corrected 

accordingly.

IV. DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. The minutes of the March 14, 2014 sentencing hearing 

and the abstract of judgment are ordered corrected to reflect that the restitution fine of 

$240 plus the administrative fee of 10 percent under Penal Code section 1202.4 totals 

$264. The clerk of the superior court is ordered to send a copy of the corrected abstract 

of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
___________________________________________

BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, ACTING P.J.

WE CONCUR:

__________________________

MIHARA, J.

__________________________

MÁRQUEZ, J.