People v. Hancok CA3
Filed 10/21/13 P. v. Hancok CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----
THE PEOPLE, C071316
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. LF013005A)
v.
ANTHONY SCOTT HANCOCK,
Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Anthony Scott Hancock pleaded no contest to attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 664),1 second degree robbery (§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)), and misdemeanor street terrorism (§ 186.22, subd. (a)). He admitted allegations that he personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7) and personally used a deadly or
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
1
dangerous weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)) in the commission of the attempted murder.2 Defendant was sentenced to prison for 14 years, consisting of nine years for attempted murder, one year for robbery, three years for infliction of great bodily injury, and one year for weapon use. A concurrent jail term of one year was imposed for street terrorism. Defendant was orally ordered to pay “$634 in fines, total amount of fines.” The clerk‟s minutes indicate that the $634 “total fine” consists, in part, of a $38 “Law Enforcement Fine” and a “$192 fine as to count 3,” the second degree robbery. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred by imposing, or allowing its clerk to impose, a “ „Law Enforcement Fine‟ ” and a “ „fine as to count 3‟ ” that “lack any authority” and must be stricken. We remand for further proceedings. FACTS The facts of defendant‟s offenses are not at issue and need not be set forth in this opinion. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND When the trial court imposed sentence, this exchange occurred: “[THE COURT:] The fines as to each -- again, I‟m going to ask my clerk have you added them up? “THE CLERK: $634. “THE COURT: $634 in fines, total amount of fines; and that can be collected through state prison, I guess. “THE CLERK: CDC. “THE COURT: CDC. [¶] In addition, there‟s going to be a parole revocation fine that‟s going to be different.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)