People v. Alvis CA3

Filed 4/28/14 P. v. Alvis CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Modoc) ----

THE PEOPLE, C073917

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. F-10-120 & F-11-332) v.

WADE DANIEL ALVIS,

Defendant and Appellant.

This case involves a challenge to the manner in which fines were imposed at sentencing. In a 2010 case (No. F-10-120), defendant Wade Daniel Alvis pleaded no contest to possessing methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a).) A three-year prison sentence was imposed, execution was suspended, and defendant was placed on probation. In a 2011 case (No. F-11-332), defendant pleaded no contest to being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, former § 12021, subd. (a)(1))1 and

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

possessing an assault weapon (former § 12280, subd. (b)). Defendant’s arrest in case No. F-11-332 also resulted in a report that defendant violated his probation in case No. F-10-120. Defendant was ultimately sentenced on both matters in a single proceeding. As relevant to this appeal, the trial court announced from the bench at sentencing, “in case F-10-120, I’m going to impose the Court fine of $815, which includes a $220 state restitution fine pursuant to [section] 1202.4, and a court operation fee of $40. [¶] . . . [¶] In case F-11-332, I’m going to impose a court fine of $310, which includes a state restitution fine of $240, pursuant to [section] 1202.4 of the Penal Code, and a court operation fee of $40, and a critical needs assessment of $30.” Defendant contends, and the Attorney General concedes, that the matter must be remanded to the trial court to enable it to specify the amounts and statutory bases for the imposition of all fines and fees. The original abstract of judgment separately states the restitution fines imposed. But, although it lists the aggregate fine amounts of $815 imposed in case No. F-10-120 and the $310 imposed in case No. F-11-332, it does not list all the components of those fines. After the notice of appeal was filed in this case, the trial court issued an amended abstract of judgment in these consolidated cases which: (1) reduces the amount of the aggregate fine in case No. F-10-120 to $810, but the aggregate appears comprised of elements whose sum exceeds that amount and it fails to state the statutory basis for many elements; and (2) states that an aggregate fine of $310 was imposed in case No. F-11-332, but indicates it is comprised of different components from those stated by the trial court at sentencing. In People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192 (High), this court stated: “Although we recognize that a detailed recitation of all the fees, fines and penalties on the record may be tedious, California law does not authorize shortcuts. All fines and fees must be set forth in the abstract of judgment. [Citations.] The abstract of judgment form