Court Opinion

ID: 9365349
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-23 20:02:14.227604+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:45.022925
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/23/23 P. v. Lopez 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                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,
                                                                                             F084085
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                               (Super. Ct. No. VCF399477)
                    v.

    JOSEPH ANTHONY LOPEZ,                                                                 OPINION
           Defendant and Appellant.

                                                   THE COURT *
         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Brett R.
Alldredge, Judge.
         Stephanie L. Gunther, 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, Lewis A. Martinez and Louis M.
Vasquez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                                                        -ooOoo-

*        Before Levy, Acting P. J., Franson, J. and DeSantos, J.
       Defendant Joseph Anthony Lopez pled no contest to a felony and
two misdemeanor charges. The resulting sentence included certain monetary obligations
totaling $3,904. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred by failing to recite
the individual fines, fees, and assessments and their statutory bases at the sentencing
hearing. Defendant further argues the abstract of judgment must specify the same. We
direct the clerk of the trial court to prepare an amended abstract of judgment that reflects
the amount of each fine, fee, and penalty assessment imposed and its statutory basis. In
all other respects, we affirm the judgment.
                           PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1
       On June 24, 2020, the Tulare County District Attorney filed a complaint charging
defendant with evading an officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a); count 1), resisting a
peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1); count 2), 2 and driving with a suspended
license (Veh. Code, § 14601.1, subd. (a); count 3). It was further alleged defendant had
suffered one prior strike conviction within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law
(§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)), served four prior prison terms (§ 667.5,
subd. (b)), and committed count 1 while on state prison parole following imprisonment
for committing a serious or violent felony (§ 3000).
       On October 20, 2021, defendant pled no contest to the charges and admitted the
special allegations.
       On March 16, 2022, the trial court sentenced defendant in count 1 to 16 months in
prison, doubled to 32 months pursuant to section 1170.12, subdivision (c)(1). Defense
counsel and the trial court noted that the prison priors had been stricken. Defendant was
ordered to pay a $600 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $600 revocation restitution

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 unless otherwise stated.

                                              2.
fine (§ 1202.45) that was stayed pending successful completion of parole, and an
aggregate amount of $3,904. The $3,904 total included various fines, fees, and penalty
assessments, which were detailed in the probation report.
       On March 18, 2022, defendant filed a notice of appeal.
                                      DISCUSSION
       Defendant challenges the adequacy of the trial court’s oral pronouncement of the
$3,904 aggregate fee it imposed, as well as how said fee is listed in the abstract of
judgment.
Additional Background
       At the sentencing hearing, the court stated as follows:

              “[THE COURT:] Pursuant to Vehicle Code [s]ection 2800.2, based
       on [defendant’s] ability to pay, he is subject to pay aggregate fines, fees,
       and assessments of $3,904.

              “[Defense counsel], do you waive an oral recitation and allocation of
       that amount set forth in [p]aragraph 8 [of the probation report] on the
       record?

              “[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Yes, Your Honor.”
       Further, the abstract of judgment stated, “Defendant [is] ordered to pay an amount
of $3,904. Refer to the [p]robation [r]eport on [p]age 8, [s]ection 8, for the [b]reakdown
of this sum amount.”
       Paragraph 8 of the probation report provided as follows: “The defendant be
ordered to pay the amount of … $3,904[.] $1,000 of this amount to be considered a fine
pursuant to [s]ection 2800.2 of the Vehicle Code, $1,000 of this amount to be considered
a State Penalty Assessment pursuant to [s]ection 1464[, subdivision] (a) …, $500 of this
amount to be considered a Criminal Justice Facilities Construction Fund Penalty
Assessment pursuant to [s]ection 76000 of the Government Code[,] $200 of this amount
to be considered a Maddy Emergency Medical Services Fund Penalty Assessment
pursuant to section [s]ection 76000.5 of the Government Code, $500 of this amount to be

                                             3.
considered a State Court Construction Penalty Assessment pursuant to [s]ection 70372 of
the Government Code, $200 of this amount to be considered a Criminal Fine Surcharge
pursuant to [s]ection 1465.7 …, $100 of this amount to be considered a DNA
Identification Fund Penalty Assessment pursuant to [s]ection 76104.6 of the Government
Code, $400 of this amount to be considered a DNA Additional Penalty Assessment
pursuant to [s]ection 76104.7 of the Government Code, $4.00 of this amount to be
considered an Emergency Medical Air Transportation and Children’s Coverage Fund
pursuant to section 76000.10 of the Government Code .…”
Legal Principles
        “[P]enalty assessments must be (1) specified in the court’s oral pronouncement of
judgment, and (2) specifically listed in the abstract of judgment.” (People v. Hamed
(2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 928, 937, citing People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192,
1200–1201.) More recent cases provide that both the “amount and statutory basis for
each fine, fee, and penalty assessment” must be specified. (People v. Hartley (2016) 248
Cal.App.4th 620, 637 (Hartley); accord, People v. Fromuth (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 91, 114
[“Trial courts are required to ‘specify[] the statutory bases of all fees, fines, and penalties’
imposed on a defendant.”].)
       There are “several ways for a trial court to perform this duty. ‘A trial court could
recite the amount and statutory basis for any base fine and the amounts and statutory
bases for any penalty assessments on the record …. [Citation.] Or, in cases where the
amounts and statutory bases for the penalty assessments have been set forth in a
probation report … the court could state the amount and statutory basis for the base fine
and make a shorthand reference in its oral pronouncement to “penalty assessments as set
forth in the” probation report … as authorized in [People v. Sharret (2011) 191
Cal.App.4th 859] and [People v. Voit (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1353].’ ” (Hartley, supra,
248 Cal.App.4th at pp. 636–637.)

                                               4.
       “[F]ailure to specify the amount and statutory basis for each fine, fee, and penalty
assessment is a ‘legal error[] at sentencing’ that can be reviewed on appeal ‘ “regardless
of whether an objection or argument was raised ….” ’ ” (Hartley, supra, 248
Cal.App.4th at p. 637.) Such a legal error cannot be waived. (People v. Smith (2001) 24
Cal.4th 849, 852 [“obvious legal errors at sentencing that are correctable without
referring to factual findings or remanding for further findings are not waivable”].)
Analysis
       In the present case, in imposing the $3,904 aggregate fee, the court specifically
referred to paragraph 8 of the probation report, which provided an itemized breakdown of
each fine, fee, and penalty assessment and their statutory bases included in the total
amount. Therefore, no error occurred in the court’s oral pronouncement of defendant’s
fines, fees, and penalty assessments.
       The abstract of judgment, on the other hand, failed to itemize each fine, fee, and
penalty assessment included in the aggregate fee, or identify their statutory bases.
(People v. Hamed, supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at p. 937 [“all fines and fees must be set forth
in the abstract of judgment” along with their statutory bases].) “If the abstract does not
specify the amount of each fine, the Department of Corrections cannot fulfill its statutory
duty to collect and forward deductions from prisoner wages to the appropriate agency.”
(People v. High, supra, 119 Cal.App.4th at p. 1200.) “Since we may correct the error on
appeal, there is no need to remand this matter to the sentencing court to orally pronounce
the correct judgment.” (Hamed, at p. 940.) Instead, we will direct the trial court clerk to
prepare an amended abstract of judgment to reflect the amount of each fine, fee, and
penalty assessment included in the $3,904 total and identify its statutory basis as reflected
in paragraph 8 of the probation report.
                                        DISPOSITION
       The clerk of the trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment
to reflect the amount of each fine, fee, and penalty assessment included in the

                                             5.
$3,904 total and identify its statutory basis as reflected in paragraph 8 of the probation
report, and to forward a copy to the appropriate entities. As so modified, the judgment is
affirmed.

                                             6.