People v. Baker CA3

Filed 4/26/16 P. v. Baker CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C079927

v. (Super. Ct. Nos. CM042609, CM042831) MATTHEW DEAN BAKER,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Matthew Dean Baker pleaded no contest to grand theft of personal property exceeding $950 in one case, and pleaded no contest to vehicle theft in another case. The trial court sentenced him to five years eight months in prison and ordered him

1

to pay an $850 fine in each case pursuant to Penal Code section 672,1 which authorizes a fine when no other fine is prescribed. The trial court added that the fines included penalty assessments, but it did not specify the assessments. The abstract of judgment reflects the $850 fines but does not identify any penalty assessments. The People now claim we lack jurisdiction because defendant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We disagree. As for defendant’s contentions, he argues the trial court erred in imposing the section 672 fine for the grand theft offense because the court also imposed a fine pursuant to section 1202.5, subdivision (a). But as defendant acknowledges, his contention is contrary to a prior decision of this court, and we decline his invitation to reconsider that holding. Defendant also contends the trial court erred in failing to specify the statutory authority for the penalty assessments. The People agree. We will remand the matter so that the trial court can specify the statutory authority for the penalty assessments. Although not raised by the parties on appeal, our review of the record indicates that the $850 fine on the vehicle theft conviction was not authorized under section 672, but instead is authorized pursuant to Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a). Because the law appears clear, we will modify the judgment without further briefing and in the interests of judicial economy to provide that the $850 fine on the vehicle theft conviction in case No. CM042831 is pursuant to Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a). Any party aggrieved may petition for rehearing. (Gov. Code, § 68081.) BACKGROUND A recitation of the underlying facts is unnecessary in view of the contentions on appeal. It is sufficient to note that in case No. CM042609, defendant pleaded no contest to grand theft of personal property exceeding $950. (§ 487, subd. (a).) And in case