In light of Assembly Bill 177, which eliminated certain fees in criminal cases and rendered the unpaid balance of any such fees unenforceable and uncollectible, the Court of Appeal struck the administrative fee under former Penal Code section 1203.1. The Court also remanded the matter to allow the trial court the opportunity to exercise its discretion under amended Penal Code section 654.
Victory Categories: Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution
The Court of Appeal modified the probation condition requiring appellant to comply with an individualized substance abuse treatment plan as ordered by the probation department to clarify that his substance abuse treatment was to be on an outpatient basis. The Court further held that the judgment should be clarified to indicate that the restitution fine under Penal Code section 1202.4(b) was stayed based on appellant’s inability to pay under People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157.
The Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred by imposing a $15,000 ($5,000 for each conviction), when the maximum allowable fine under Penal Code section 1202.4(b) is $10,000. The Court also directed the trial court to correct errors in the abstract of judgment.
The Court of Appeal held that appellant’s sentence for receiving the stolen catalytic converter (Pen. Code, § 496(a)) should have been stayed under Penal Code section 654 because there was no evidence that he had a different intent or objective in receiving the stolen catalytic converter than he did in stealing it. The court also vacated the $50 fee imposed pursuant former Penal Code section 987.5(a) in light of AB 1869.
The Court of Appeal remanded the matter for resentencing to allow the trial court to (1) exercise the discretion conferred on it by Assembly Bill 518 and any other applicable recent changes to sentencing laws, (2) impose sentence on three counts and then stay the execution of those sentences pursuant to section 654, unless the court elects to impose sentence on one of these counts, in which case it should impose sentence and stay execution of the sentences on any remaining counts, (3) amend the abstract of judgment to show that appellant is entitled to additional presentence credits, and (4) amend the abstract of judgment to show that appellant’s conviction for making a criminal threat was reversed after appellant’s first appeal and never retried.
In light of recent amendments (Assembly Bill 1950) to Penal Code section 1203.1, which limited felony probation terms to two years except for certain offenses, the Court of Appeal held that appellant’s probation term must be reduced from three to two years. The Court also struck the balance of unpaid administrative fees that are no longer authorized under recent legislation.
The Court of Appeal struck a probation condition that required appellant to participate in mental health treatment and to “take all medication as prescribed.” In so doing, the Court found that the condition was unreasonable under Lent because the record contained no evidence that any medications were “reasonably necessary to deter or avoid future criminality” or that mental instability contributed to appellant’s offense. In light of AB 1869, which eliminated certain fees in criminal cases and rendered the unpaid balance of any such fees unenforceable and uncollectible, the court also vacated several administrative fees.
The Court of Appeal remanded for the trial court to consider resentencing under Penal Code section 654 in light of Assembly Bill 518, and to strike the fees imposed for preparation of appellant’s probation report and booking pursuant to Penal Code section 1465.9.
In light of Assembly Bill No. 1869, which eliminated certain fees in criminal cases and rendered the unpaid balance of any such fees unenforceable and uncollectible, the Court directed the trial court to vacate the fee for probation’s presentence report (Pen. Code, § 1203.1(b)). The Court further held that remand was necessary in light of recent amendments (Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) to Penal Code section 1170, which limits the court’s ability to impose a sentence exceeding the middle term and creates a presumption in favor of the low term where the defendant experienced psychological, physical, or childhood trauma and those factors contributed to the commission of the offense.
In light of Assembly Bill No. 1869 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.), which eliminated certain fees in criminal cases and rendered the unpaid balance of any such fees unenforceable and uncollectible, the Court of Appeal vacated the probation report fee (Pen. Code, § 1203.1b). The Court further held that the trial court erred by failing to calculate appellant’s custody credits prior to resentencing him.