People v. Mosier CA3

Filed 10/16/23 P. v. Mosier CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Tehama) ----

THE PEOPLE, C096230

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 21CR002427)

v.

TARA CHRISTINE MOSIER,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Tara Christine Mosier pled guilty to two counts of transportation of a controlled substance with intent to sell. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court incorrectly imposed fines and fees without orally pronouncing them in her presence. We conclude defendant’s failure to object to the lack of an oral pronouncement during sentencing forfeited this claim on appeal, and therefore affirm.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Because defendant does not appeal her convictions, we summarize only the relevant procedural history. Seven weeks after defendant’s guilty plea, she was sentenced. As part of the probation report, the probation department recommended defendant pay a court operations assessment of $80, a conviction assessment of $60, a restitution fine of $1,200, a lab analysis fee of $50, penalty assessments of $130, a drug program fee of $100, and additional penalty assessments of $260, for a total of $1,880. Defendant confirmed she received a copy of the probation report. The court sentenced defendant to a prison term of eight years. After pronouncing the prison term, the court asked, “With regard to the remaining terms and conditions, do counsel waive reading of those?” Defense counsel said, “Yes,” but asked to clarify defendant’s sentence and credits. After clarifying these matters, the trial court again asked, “So, counsel, [do you] waive reading of those terms and conditions?” Defense counsel replied, “Yes, your Honor.” The court then said, “Okay. So those are incorporated as if they were fully read on the record and made an order of the court.” The court twice asked the parties if there was anything it may have missed. Defense counsel said, “No, your Honor,” and the proceedings concluded. The minute order from the hearing provided, “[t]he Court adopts the terms and conditions listed” in the probation report’s “entirety,” “[a]s if read into the record in their entirety and incorporated into the judgment and sentence.” “Respective [c]ounsel waived reading.” The abstract of judgment indicated that the court imposed $1,880 in fines and fees. Defendant filed a motion with the trial court requesting it remove the fines and fees from the abstract of judgment, as they were not orally pronounced. The trial court denied the motion. Defendant appeals.