People v. Spinardi CA1/1

Filed 4/29/21 P. v. Spinardi CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A160207

v. (Mendocino County JOHN ROBERT SPINARDI, Super. Ct. No. SCUK-CRCR-20- 34001) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant pled no contest to attempted vehicle theft with a prior and misdemeanor petty theft. The trial court imposed an 18-month split sentence, half to be served in jail and the other half on mandatory supervision. As a condition of mandatory supervision, the court ordered defendant to cooperate with evidence-based practices “including but not limited to: Geo Reentry Services, workbooks, journals, GPS monitoring.” The court also ordered defendant to pay a $50 fee for payment of fines and penalty assessments in installments (installment fee) pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1205, and imposed a monthly supervision fee and a fee for each supplemental report prepared after a violation of mandatory supervision. Defendant contends the evidence-based practices condition was

All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise 1

indicated.

unconstitutionally vague, the $50 installment fee was unauthorized, and the court failed to state the statutory bases for imposition of the supervision and supplemental report fees. We agree that the evidence-based practices condition, as currently worded, is vague, and accordingly, modify the condition. Additionally, we strike the $50 installment payment fee because the restitution fines imposed by the court are not subject to assessments covered by section 1205. We modify the mandatory supervision order to reflect section 1203.1b as the statutory basis for the supervision and supplemental report fees. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed. I. BACKGROUND2 Defendant was charged in a complaint with attempted vehicle theft, a felony (§ 664, Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count one), petty theft, a misdemeanor (§ 484, subd. (a); count two), and possession of methamphetamine, a misdemeanor (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a); count three). The prosecution later amended the complaint to add a fourth count, attempted vehicle theft with a prior (§§ 664, 666.5). Pursuant to a plea agreement for an 18-month split sentence, half to be served in jail and the other half on mandatory supervision, defendant pled no contest to attempted vehicle theft with a prior (count four) and petty theft (count two). The court granted the prosecution’s motion to dismiss the remaining counts. The parties and the court subsequently agreed they needed to amend count four, attempted vehicle theft with a prior, to include a reference to Vehicle Code section 10851, the substantive offense of vehicle theft. To resolve the issue, the court modified defendant’s plea form to change count