People v. Dejong CA5

Filed 3/24/14 P. v. Dejong 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F065572 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF37916) v.

MARC JOHN DEJONG, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County. James A. Boscoe, Judge. Francisco Valentin Cortés, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Kathleen McKenna and Amanda D. Cary, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Kane, J. and Peña, J.

A jury found defendant, Marc John Dejong, guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)1) and obstructing a telephone line (§ 591). The trial court granted probation and ordered that defendant pay certain fines and fees. On appeal, defendant contends: (1) the trial court erred in failing to specify the statutory basis for each fine and fee it imposed and (2) the trial court erred in ordering as conditions of probation that he pay the cost of preparation of the presentence report and the cost of probation supervision. We will strike the challenged probation conditions and remand for further proceedings. DISCUSSION2 I. Statutory Basis for Each Fine and Fee Defendant contends, and the People concede, that remand is necessary for the trial court to state the statutory basis for each fine and fee imposed. We agree that neither the oral pronouncement, nor the order granting probation, properly lists these details. All fines, fees, and penalties imposed must be separately listed in the abstract of judgment with the statutory basis for such amounts set forth. (People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200-1201.) Where, as here, the defendant is placed on probation and no abstract of judgment is issued, the trial court must prepare an order specifying the statutory bases of all fees, fines, and penalties imposed. (People v. Eddards (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 712, 718.) We will remand to allow the trial court to do so.

II. Reimbursement of Probation Costs as Conditions of Probation Defendant’s order granting probation requires that he pay the $575.25 cost of preparation of the presentence report and the $30.75 monthly cost of probation supervision services. Defendant argues these cost reimbursement fees were improperly made conditions of his probation. Again, we agree.