Court Opinion

ID: 9890875
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-16 18:03:30.066318+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:05.148258
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/16/23 P. v. Mosier 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                                       (Tehama)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C096230

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                   (Super. Ct. No. 21CR002427)

           v.

 TARA CHRISTINE MOSIER,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Defendant Tara Christine Mosier pled guilty to two counts of transportation of a
controlled substance with intent to sell. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court
incorrectly imposed fines and fees without orally pronouncing them in her presence. We
conclude defendant’s failure to object to the lack of an oral pronouncement during
sentencing forfeited this claim on appeal, and therefore affirm.

                                                             1
                   FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
        Because defendant does not appeal her convictions, we summarize only the
relevant procedural history.
        Seven weeks after defendant’s guilty plea, she was sentenced. As part of the
probation report, the probation department recommended defendant pay a court
operations assessment of $80, a conviction assessment of $60, a restitution fine of
$1,200, a lab analysis fee of $50, penalty assessments of $130, a drug program fee of
$100, and additional penalty assessments of $260, for a total of $1,880. Defendant
confirmed she received a copy of the probation report. The court sentenced defendant to
a prison term of eight years.
        After pronouncing the prison term, the court asked, “With regard to the remaining
terms and conditions, do counsel waive reading of those?” Defense counsel said, “Yes,”
but asked to clarify defendant’s sentence and credits. After clarifying these matters, the
trial court again asked, “So, counsel, [do you] waive reading of those terms and
conditions?” Defense counsel replied, “Yes, your Honor.” The court then said, “Okay.
So those are incorporated as if they were fully read on the record and made an order of
the court.” The court twice asked the parties if there was anything it may have missed.
Defense counsel said, “No, your Honor,” and the proceedings concluded.
        The minute order from the hearing provided, “[t]he Court adopts the terms and
conditions listed” in the probation report’s “entirety,” “[a]s if read into the record in their
entirety and incorporated into the judgment and sentence.” “Respective [c]ounsel waived
reading.” The abstract of judgment indicated that the court imposed $1,880 in fines and
fees.
        Defendant filed a motion with the trial court requesting it remove the fines and
fees from the abstract of judgment, as they were not orally pronounced. The trial court
denied the motion. Defendant appeals.

                                               2
                                        DISCUSSION
       Defendant argues that the trial court improperly imposed the $1,880 in fines and
fees because they were not orally pronounced in her presence. The People argue that,
because defendant failed to object to the lack of oral pronouncement of fines and fees
during sentencing, she has forfeited the claim. We agree with the People.
       In People v. Tillman (2000) 22 Cal.4th 300, 302, our Supreme Court held that the
prosecution’s failure to object to the lack of an oral pronouncement of fines and fees
forfeited an appellate claim the fines and fees were erroneously not imposed. This
forfeiture rule applies the same to criminal defendants as it does to the prosecution. (Id.
at p. 303.)
       This case is no different from Tillman. The trial court twice asked if defendant
waived reading of the terms and conditions in the probation report. On both occasions
defendant’s counsel said, “Yes.” After incorporating the terms and conditions into the
record, the trial court twice asked the parties if it had missed anything. Defendant’s
counsel said, “No.” Because defendant failed to object to the lack of oral pronouncement
at trial, she has forfeited the claim on appeal.
       Defendant contends she could not have understood the terms and conditions the
court was referring to as being the fines and fees listed in the probation report because the
fines and fees in the probation report were recommended as terms of probation, which the
court did not order. We find this argument unavailing. While the trial court did not
impose probation and the related terms, the only other terms and conditions listed in the
prison recommendation were the fines and fees at issue here. Defendant has not
identified alternative terms and conditions she reasonably believed the court was
referring to when it asked if she waived reading of the terms and conditions. Thus, a
reasonable reading of the record reveals the trial court incorporated the fines and fees
listed in the probation report when orally pronouncing defendant’s sentence.

                                               3
       Defendant relies on People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380 for a contrary
outcome. Zackery is inapposite. In Zackery, the defendant pled no contest to two of
three counts, but the clerk indicated in the minute order that he pled no contest to all
three. (Id. at pp. 384-385.) The appellate court ordered correction of the minute order
because it did not reflect what occurred at the trial court. (Id. at p. 386.) Here, defendant
has not demonstrated a clerical error. Instead, the minute order and the abstract of
judgment correctly reflect that the trial court incorporated into the judgment the fines and
fees contained in the probation report. Thus, Zackery does not provide us with a basis to
strike defendant’s fines and fees.
                                      DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.

                                                  /s/
                                                  ROBIE, Acting P. J.

We concur:

/s/
MAURO, J.

/s/
KRAUSE, J.

                                              4