People v. Zabala CA3

California Court of Appeal Dec 2, 2020 No. C090631Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court properly imposed mandatory fines and fees by implicitly incorporating the probation report's recommendations into its oral sentencing pronouncement.

Issues

Whether the trial court's failure to orally detail specific mandatory fines and fees in the sentencing hearing requires them to be stricken from the abstract of judgment.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“a close review of the transcript reveals that the trial court was working from the probation report and implicitly incorporating it by reference while orally pronouncing sentence.”

“The remainder of the recommendations were ordered by implicit incorporation of the probation report, and were properly included on the abstract of the judgment where appropriate.”

“Although we agree that the record is not as detailed as would be ideal, it is sufficient to show that the minimum fines and fees were indeed imposed.”

Filed 12/2/20 P. v. Zabala CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C090631

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 19FE003434, 18FE021040) v.

JEREMIAH RALPH ZABALA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Jeremiah Ralph Zabala pleaded no contest to criminal offenses in two separate cases; his sentences were doubled due to a strike prior. The trial court did not detail any fines or fees in its oral pronouncement of sentence. Defendant argues that fines and fees reflected in the abstract of judgment were not properly imposed and must be stricken.1 As we explain, we disagree and affirm the judgment.

1 Defendant initially argued his presentence credits were incorrect. The trial court subsequently amended the abstract of judgment to correct defendant’s custody credits.

BACKGROUND In case No. 18FE021040 (the 2018 case), defendant pleaded no contest to felony unlawful possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 29820).2 In case No. 19FE003434 (the 2019 case), defendant pleaded no contest to felony attempting to evade law enforcement by driving in the wrong direction (Veh. Code, § 2800.4), felony driving under the influence of alcohol causing injury or death (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a)), and misdemeanor resisting arrest (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)). As to each case, defendant admitted a prior strike allegation based on a 2015 sustained petition for juvenile robbery. (§§ 667, subd. (b)-(i), 1170.12.) A probation report prepared for defendant’s sentencing recommended imposing various fines and fees, including restitution fines of $1,200 in the 2019 case and $300 in the 2018 case (§ 1202.4), a “suitable fine” in the range of $390 to $1,000, booking and jail classification fees, various costs including presentence report and investigation, “mandatory court operations assessment[s]” totaling $160 (§ 1465.8), and court facility fees totaling $120 (Govt. Code, § 70373). At the sentencing hearing, immediately after the trial court called the case and defense counsel waived formal arraignment, the court asked defense counsel if he wanted to be heard; counsel replied, “Just [to] ask the Court to reduce the fines and fees to either eliminat[e] them as possible or reduce to statutory minimum.” The court responded: “I’m prepared to do that” and then announced that it was in receipt of the probation report and had read and considered the report. The court then ordered the report “filed as part of

People v. Zabala CA3

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, C090631

JEREMIAH RALPH ZABALA,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief