California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division
from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County
No. PA090742, Cynthia L. Ulfig, Judge. Dismissed.
Gambale, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant
Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney
General, Steven E. Mercer and David A. Voet, Deputy Attorneys
General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
GRIMES, ACTING P. J.
Amanda Sue Hall pled no contest to three counts of identity
theft with a prior (Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (c)(2)).
(All further statutory references are to the Penal Code
unless otherwise indicated.) She was sentenced to three years
eight months in county jail, and the court imposed various
fees and assessments, including direct victim restitution of
$3, 000 (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)), a $300 restitution fine
(§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), $90 criminal conviction
assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), $120 court operations
assessment (§ 1465.8), and public defender fees of $508
(§ 987.8). The court stayed “all of the fines and
fees owed to the court” so that defendant could focus
on paying victim restitution.
on People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th
1157 (Dueñas), defendant's only
contention on appeal is the fees and assessments must be
reversed, and the $300 restitution fine must be stayed,
pending a hearing on her ability to pay. (She does not
challenge the order to pay $3, 000 in direct victim
restitution.) Defendant has made no claim of error to the
trial court, either at the time of sentencing or after, as
required by section 1237.2. We find defendant's appeal is
not cognizable under section 1237.2 and therefore dismiss it.
1237.2 provides: “An appeal may not be taken by the
defendant from a judgment of conviction on the ground of an
error in the imposition or calculation of fines, penalty
assessments, surcharges, fees, or costs unless the defendant
first presents the claim in the trial court at the time of
sentencing, or if the error is not discovered until after
sentencing, the defendant first makes a motion for correction
in the trial court, which may be made informally in writing.
The trial court retains jurisdiction after a notice of appeal
has been filed to correct any error in the imposition or
calculation of fines, penalty assessments, surcharges, fees,
or costs upon the defendant's request for correction.
This section only applies in cases where the erroneous
imposition or calculation of fines, penalty assessments,
surcharges, fees, or costs are the sole issue on
contends section 1237.2 does not apply because she is
claiming a violation of her constitutional rights, not a
miscalculation of the fees. We are not persuaded.
section 1237.2 broadly applies to an error in the
imposition or calculation of fees. The plain
language of the statute “does not limit [its] reach
only to situations where the fee simply did not apply at all
or was a result of mathematical error.” (People v.
Alexander (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 798, 801 [§ 1237.2
barred an appeal from the imposition of a higher than
bargained for restitution fee].) Section 1237.2 applies any
time a defendant claims the trial court wrongly imposed
fines, penalty assessments, surcharges, fees, or costs
without having first presented the claim in the trial court,
and by the terms of the statute, the trial court retains
jurisdiction pending appeal to correct any error.
our disposition of this appeal does not implicate
defendant's constitutional rights. Dueñas
found it was a violation of due process for the trial court
to impose a restitution fine without a showing of
defendant's ability to pay, and remanded with directions
to the trial court to stay the restitution fine unless and
until the People proved defendant had the ability to pay it.
(Dueñas, supra, 30 Cal.App.5th at
pp. 1164, 1172-1173.) In this case, the trial court has
already stayed “all of the fines and fees owed to the
court” so that defendant might give priority to paying
the direct victim restitution. To the extent defendant seeks
to make the stay of these fees and fines permanent unless and
until the People prove she can pay them, defendant is
entitled to request that from the trial court, and has always
had that right under section 1237.2.
we dismiss this appeal.