People v. Potts CA2/2

Filed 7/26/22 P. v. Potts CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, B314733

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA094029) v.

TIMOTHY POTTS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Scott T. Millington, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions.

Jason A. Lieber, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Kathy S. Pomerantz, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ______________________________

This appeal concerns a 10 percent administrative assessment on a $300 restitution fine. At the time defendant and appellant Timothy Potts was convicted and sentenced, the trial court imposed a $300 restitution fine pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b).1 Also at that time, section 1202.4, subdivision (l), statutorily obligated the trial court to impose a 10 percent administrative fee on that fine. Effective January 1, 2022, as the People agree, such administrative fees are no longer permitted and any unpaid amount must be vacated from the judgment. Despite this concession, the People oppose defendant’s request on appeal to vacate the 10 percent administrative fee, raising procedural objections. We are not convinced by the People’s contentions. Thus, we reverse the trial court’s order denying defendant’s request concerning his restitution fine with directions to vacate the 10 percent assessment imposed pursuant to former section 1202.4, subdivision (l). PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2017, a jury convicted defendant of one count of injuring a girlfriend (§ 273.5, subd. (f)(2)) and six counts of attempting to dissuade a witness (§ 136.1, subd. (a)(2)). The trial court also found true that defendant had suffered two prior “strike” convictions (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(j), 1170.12), served five prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (d)), and suffered two serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). (People v. Potts (May 3, 2019), B290757 [nonpub. opn.], p. 2.) He was sentenced to a prison term