People v. Garner CA1/4

Filed 3/23/22 P. v. Garner CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A161204 v. CEAN ALLEN GARNER, (Mendocino County Super. Ct. No. SCUK-CRCR-18-94108) Defendant and Appellant.

In December 2019, defendant and appellant Cean Allen Garner pleaded no contest to three counts of possession of a controlled substance while armed with a loaded firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1, subd. (a)). In August 2020, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Garner on formal probation for three years, subject to various terms and conditions. On appeal, Garner challenges the validity of the court’s imposition of certain fines and fees in light of subsequently enacted legislation. He further contends the order of probation must be modified to correct clerical errors. We agree. BACKGROUND Because the issues on appeal solely relate to sentencing, we omit the facts of the underlying offenses.

1

At the August 28, 2020 sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered Garner to pay the following fines and fees pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1203.1b, subdivision (a): (1) a $400 presentence investigation report fee; (2) a $92 per month probation supervision fee; (3) a $33 per month drug testing fee; and (4) a $237 fee for preparation of the supplemental probation report. The court further imposed a $50 installment payment fee (§ 1205) and a $75 probation collection fee (§ 1203.1b, subd. (h).) Additionally, the court imposed but suspended a $300 restitution fine (§ 1204.4; Gov. Code, § 13967) and a $300 probation revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.44).2 With the exception of the restitution fine further discussed below, these orders are reflected in the probation order filed on October 16, 2020. DISCUSSION Garner argues and the Attorney General agrees that the passage of Assembly Bill No. 1869 eliminated Garner’s responsibility for any unpaid balance of the fees imposed pursuant to section 1203.1b. Garner also argues that the passage of Assembly Bill No. 177 similarly eliminates the $50 installment payment fee (§ 1205) and the $75 collection fee (§ 1203.1b, subd. (h).) Finally, Garner contends the probation order should be modified to reflect the restitution fines were suspended rather than imposed.