People v. Gallon CA4/1

Filed 12/28/21 P. v. Gallon CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D078357

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN395782)

TONI GALLON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Sim Von Kalinowski, Judge. Affirmed and remanded with directions. Matthew A. Lopas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters and Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorneys General, Steve Oetting and Warren J. Williams, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Toni Gallon pleaded guilty to grand theft of personal property (Pen.

Code,1 § 487, subd. (a)), admitting she unlawfully took another person’s

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

property valued at more than $950. In exchange, the People dismissed other charges against her. Gallon contends and the People concede that (1) the order of formal probation must be modified because it does not reflect the court’s oral pronouncement; and (2) she is entitled to retroactively benefit from Assembly Bill Nos. 1869 and 1950. We affirm the judgment and remand with directions set forth below. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND At Gallon’s October 2020 sentencing hearing, the trial court suspended execution of a three-year sentence and granted Gallon three years formal probation, ordering her to serve 180 days in custody. Defense counsel objected to probation condition 6(n), requiring Gallon to submit to electronic search of her devices, and conditions 14(a), and 14(b), which require her to obtain substance abuse assessment and treatment. Counsel argued that no nexus existed between those conditions and Gallon’s crimes. The court agreed and struck those three conditions; however, that is not reflected in the court’s written order. Further, the court stated Gallon would no longer have to pay an $820 fine under section 1465.7, subdivision (a). However, it ruled she was required to pay other fines set forth in the probation report (including a $154 criminal justice administration fee under Government Code section 29550.1, presentence investigation costs under section 1203.1b, and court-appointed attorney costs under section 9878 in monthly installments of $25, beginning six months after her release from custody. This again is not reflected in the court’s written order, which instead states that the $820 penalty is imposed, and that Gallon is required to pay $50 monthly fines, fees and assessments beginning in December 2020.