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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Defendant Christopher Paul Quick pleaded no contest to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor more than three years younger than defendant (Pen. Code, § 261.5, subd. (c)).*fn1 The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on three years of formal probation.
On appeal, defendant contends: (1) his $300 sex offender fine (§ 290.3) was unauthorized; (2) a $200 fine for the offense (§ 261.5, subd. (c)) exceeded the statutory limit; (3) requiring him to waive his Fourth Amendment rights was an unreasonable probation condition; (4) the ban forbidding the use of medical marijuana was an unreasonable probation condition; (5) prohibiting him from associating with those who use or sell controlled substances was overbroad; and (6) limits on associating with children were overbroad. We shall modify the fines and probation conditions and remand to the trial court with instructions.
In February 2008, defendant, age 20, began exchanging text messages with a 14-year-old girl whom he met through a mutual friend. In September 2008, defendant drove the girl to his apartment, where they engaged in consensual intercourse.
The court imposed a $300 sex offender fine pursuant to section 290.3. The parties agree this fine was unauthorized. They are correct.
Section 290, subdivision (a) provides that any person convicted of an offense specified in section 290, subdivision (c) shall pay a $300 fine for the first conviction. Defendant was convicted of violating section 261.5, subdivision (c), which is not among the crimes listed in section 290, subdivision (c). The fine was unauthorized, and we shall vacate it.
II. The Section 261.5 Fine
The court imposed a $200 fine for the offense (§ 261.5, subd. (c)--count 1). There are two problems with this fine.
First, the trial court did not specify the statutory basis for this fine. Since the unspecified fine was imposed on "count 1," and defendant was convicted of a single offense, the parties presume the court was referring to the statutory fine for unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor more than three years younger than defendant (§ 261.5, subd. (e)(3)). We agree, but the trial court should not leave others to guess at the basis for the fine. (See People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1201.)
Second, any person convicted under section 261.5 may be fined up to $70. (§ 261.5, subd. (e)(3).) The parties contend the fine must be modified to ...