(Super. Ct. No. CRBF09-1852)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Blease, Acting P. J.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Following his plea of guilty to voluntary manslaughter and his admission to personal use of a knife, defendant Scott Matthew Calestini appeals the sentence imposed. He contends the trial court failed to separately list each penalty imposed, and that the $170 laboratory analysis fee and the $170 drug program fee were unauthorized. We shall strike the unauthorized fees and shall affirm the judgment in all other respects.*fn1
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A detailed recitation of the facts and circumstances is unnecessary for the disposition of this appeal. Briefly summarized, defendant and the victim, John Alexander, were partners in a marijuana cultivation enterprise conducted on defendant's property. During a fight, defendant stabbed and killed Alexander. Defendant was on misdemeanor probation for possession of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (c)) in case number 07-2112 at the time of the crime.
Defendant pleaded guilty in case number 09-1852 to voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (a))*fn2 and admitted personally using a knife during commission of the crime (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (b)(1)) in exchange for a 12-year sentencing lid and dismissal of all remaining charges and allegations pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754 (Harvey).*fn3 The court denied probation and sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of seven years in state prison.
The court imposed a $1,400 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)(2)) and a $1,400 parole revocation fine, stayed pending successful completion of parole (§ 1202.45), and stated as follows: "The court will also enter as orders that which is set forth specifically and verbatim in the probation department report on page 14, specifically paragraphs 1 through 9, as well as specifically and verbatim paragraphs 10 and 11 on page 15." The referenced portions of the probation report reflect the following recommended fees and fines: "restitution in the sum of $2,378.50 to Victims of Crime Fund, and restitution in the sum of $632.32 to Susan Buda," $340 for the cost of preparation of the probation report, a $170 laboratory analysis fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5, subd. (a)), a $170 drug program fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.7, subd. (a)), a $30 court security fee (§ 1465.8), a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), and a $148 booking fee (Gov. Code, § 29550).
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
Defendant contends the trial court erred when, in pronouncing oral judgment, it failed to state each of the fees, fines, and penalties on the record and instead incorporated by reference portions of the probation report. He claims that in order for the abstract to correctly reflect the court's oral pronouncement of judgment, the matter must be remanded for the trial court to articulate on the record each of the fees, fines, and penalties imposed. We disagree.
As we have explained, all fines and fees must be set forth on the record and in the abstract of judgment. (People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200-1201.) Thus, the abstract must "separately list, with the statutory basis, all fines, fees and penalties imposed . . . ." (Id. at p. 1201.) "Although . . . a detailed recitation of all the fees, fines and penalties on the record may be tedious, California law does not authorize shortcuts. . . . At a minimum, the inclusion of all fines and fees in the abstract may assist state and local agencies in their collection efforts. [Citation.] Thus, even where the Department of Corrections [and Rehabilitation] has ...