People v. Dumont CA3

Filed 10/14/14 P. v. Dumont CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (El Dorado) ----

THE PEOPLE, C074622

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. P12CRF0521)

v.

RALPH EUGENE DUMONT,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Ralph Eugene Dumont guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) and driving with a blood-alcohol content of 0.08 percent or greater and found true an allegation that he had a blood-alcohol level of 0.15 percent or greater. The trial court sustained a strike, three prior prison terms, and two prior DUI conviction allegations. Defendant was sentenced to nine years eight months in state prison with various fines and fees, including a $2,374 fine, imposed. The fine was later modified to $2,277.

1

On appeal, defendant contends there are numerous errors in the penalties, fees, and assessments associated with the fine. Agreeing with defendant, we shall modify the penalties, fees, and assessments associated with the base fine. BACKGROUND1 At sentencing, the trial court imposed “a court fine and penalties and assessments in the amount of $2,374” on the DUI conviction (DUI fine). The abstract of judgment listed the fine but did not separately list the penalties, fees, and assessments associated with it. During the pendency of this appeal, defendant’s appellate counsel sent a letter to the trial court on November 18, 2013, requesting the trial court provide the statutory basis for certain fines, fees, and assessments, reconsider the restitution and parole revocation fines, and correct errors in the abstract. The trial court modified the restitution and parole revocation fines, modified the DUI fine to $2,277, issued what appeared to be a printout of a computer program for calculating various fines, fees, penalties, and assessments, and issued an amended abstract of judgment. On January 8, 2014, appellate counsel again requested clarification of the DUI fine. The trial court issued a table outlining the statutory basis for the fine and associated fees, assessments, and penalties. Appellate counsel requested further clarification on January 30, 2014. The trial court promulgated another table. (See appendix.) DISCUSSION Defendant identifies numerous errors with the penalties, fees, and assessments associated with the base fine. With one minor exception, the People agree. We agree with defendant.