Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The People v. Angel Ileen Stone

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Colusa)


November 26, 2012

THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
ANGEL ILEEN STONE, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

(Super. Ct. No. CR53482)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Raye , P. J.

P. v. Stone

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

Defendant Angel Ileen Stone entered a negotiated guilty plea to failing to appear on her own recognizance and was sentenced to serve two years in the county jail. The trial court also ordered defendant to pay a "criminal fine of $1,328."

On appeal, defendant contends, and the Attorney General concedes, the matter must be remanded to the trial court to enable it to specify the correct statutory basis for the court's imposition of the $1,328 fine. We accept the Attorney General's concession.

An abstract of judgment must fully and accurately capture all components of a defendant's sentence. (See People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185; People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385-389.) In People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, this court stated: "Although we recognize that a detailed recitation of all the fees, fines and penalties on the record may be tedious, California law does not authorize shortcuts. All fines and fees must be set forth in the abstract of judgment. [Citations.] The abstract of judgment form used here, Judicial Council form CR-290 (rev. Jan. 1, 2003)[*fn1 ] provides a number of lines for 'other' financial obligations in addition to those delineated with statutory references on the preprinted form. If the abstract does not specify the amount of each fine, the Department of Corrections cannot fulfill its statutory duty to collect and forward deductions from prisoner wages to the appropriate agency. [Citation.] 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 has no statutory obligation to collect a particular fee, such as the laboratory fee imposed under Health and Safety Code section 11372.5, the fee must be included in the abstract of judgment. [Citation.]" (Id. at p. 1200; see also People v. Eddards (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 712, 717.)

Here, neither the abstract of judgment nor the minute order of sentencing recites the statutory basis for the various components of the $1,328 fine, and the trial court did not enumerate them during its oral pronouncement of judgment.

On remand, the trial court shall prepare an amended abstract of judgment specifying the correct statutory basis of all fees, fines, and penalties imposed upon defendant.

DISPOSITION

Defendant's conviction is affirmed. The case is remanded to the trial court, and the trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment specifying the correct statutory basis for all fines, fees, and penalties imposed upon defendant. The trial court is directed to forward a certified copy of the amended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, to be forwarded, as necessary, to the relevant authorities.

We concur: BLEASE , J. HULL , J.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.