People v. Sprague CA3

Filed 2/6/15 P. v. Sprague CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE, C070565

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 10F4280, 10F4962, 10F8118) v.

STEPHEN LEE SPRAGUE, Jr.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Stephen Lee Sprague, Jr., pleaded guilty in case No. 10F4280 to three counts of residential burglary; in case No. 10F4962 to one count of receiving stolen property; and in case No. 10F8118 to one count of residential burglary and two counts of receiving stolen property. The trial court sentenced defendant in these three cases to a total aggregate term of nine years four months. Defendant contends that the abstract of judgment reflects crime prevention fines not orally imposed by the trial court and asks us to strike these fines.

1

We agree with defendant. Accordingly, we order deletion of the fines, correction of the minute order and abstract, and otherwise affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The minute order of sentencing and the abstract of judgment both state that the court ordered defendant to pay crime prevention fines pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.51 and the applicable penalty assessments for a total of $38 in case No. 10F8118, and $114 in case No. 10F4280. The trial court did not orally impose these fines at sentencing. During the sentencing proceeding, the trial court asked defense counsel whether it was necessary to read all of the recommendations listed in the probation officer’s report or whether it could just refer to the recommendations by number. Defense counsel replied, “It’s fine with the defense if you refer to them by the numbers or just adopt them. We don’t need a full reading, your Honor.” However, the trial court never referred to the recommendations concerning the section 1202.5 fines or otherwise expressly indicated it was adopting any group of recommendations that would include the recommendations concerning those fines. At the end of the sentencing hearing, the trial court asked if there was anything further. The prosecution never pointed out the court’s failure to reference any of the fine recommendations; nor did the prosecution object to the failure to impose those fines. DISCUSSION Defendant asks that we strike the section 1202.5 crime prevention fines from the abstract of judgment.2 His argument has merit.