Filed 8/17/26 P. v. Cross CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
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has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE,
F089755
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super. Ct. No. VCF454203)
v.
THOMAS RILEY CROSS, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Stephen
Drew, Judge. (Retired judge of the Tulare Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)
Allan E. Junker, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Franson, J. and Harrell, J.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher J. Rench and
Rosanne Rust, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Defendant Thomas Riley Cross contends on appeal that the matter must be
remanded for resentencing for the trial court to state the statutory basis for the imposed
fines and fees in case Nos. VCF454203, PCM440439, and PCM416476. The People
agree, as do we. However, after our court requested supplemental briefing, the parties
concede that our court only has appellate jurisdiction over case No. VCF454203, because
case Nos. PCM440439 and PCM416476 only charged misdemeanors. The court is
directed to prepare an amended probation minute order for case No. VCF454203 and
forward it to the appropriate parties.
PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
On August 28, 2021, the Tulare County District Attorney filed a complaint in case
No. PCM416476 (Case I), charging defendant with misdemeanor resisting a peace officer
(Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)).1
On April 5, 2023, the Tulare County District Attorney filed a complaint in case
No. PCM440439 (Case II), charging defendant with misdemeanor resisting a peace
officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)).
On May 3, 2024, the Tulare County District Attorney filed a complaint in case
No. VCF454203 (Case III), charging defendant with failure to appear on his own
recognizance (§ 1320, subd. (b); count 1);2 misdemeanor resisting a peace officer (§ 148,
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise noted.
2 Defendant was charged with the commission of evading a peace officer (Veh.
Code, § 2800.2) and was released from custody on his own recognizance on May 17,
2023.
2.
subd. (a)(1); count 2); and misdemeanor driving without a valid license (Veh. Code,
§ 12500, subd. (a); count 3).
On March 14, 2025, the parties agreed that the prosecution would dismiss count 1
in Case III (felony failure to appear on own recognizance; § 1320) and that defendant
would plead no contest to the remaining counts in Case III and no contest to the
misdemeanor counts in each of Cases I and II. After the trial court advised defendant of
his rights, he waived them and pled no contest to all remaining misdemeanor counts in
the three cases, pursuant to the negotiated plea agreement. The court held a sentencing
hearing the same day. In Cases II and III, the court placed defendant on 12 months’
conditional release, and in Case II, the court placed defendant on one year of probation.
The court ordered the imposition of fines and fees ordered in each of the three cases, as
follows: in Case III, a $165 “restitution fine,” a $40 “[c]ourt [s]ecurity [f]ee,” a $35
“infraction fee,” a suspended $165 section 1202.44 fine; in Case II, a $165 “restitution
fine,” a $40 “[c]ourt [s]ecurity [f]ee,” and a $30 “[c]onviction [f]ee,” and a suspended
$165 section 1202.44 fine; and in Case I, a $165 “restitution fine,” a $40 “[c]ourt
[s]ecurity [f]ee,” a $30 “conviction fee,” and a suspended $165 section 1202.44 fine.
On May 1, 2025, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.3, 4
3 Defendant filed his notice of appeal in propria persona and did not request a
certificate of probable cause.
4 Defendant has authority to appeal the matter in Case III, as this case originated as
a felony complaint, where the felony charge was dismissed and defendant pled to a
misdemeanor and infraction. (People v. Morales (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1587, 1596
[“under [California Rules of Court,] rule 8.304[(a)(2)(B)], although defendant was
ultimately convicted of a lesser offense, this is still a felony case for the purposes of
appellate jurisdiction since defendant’s offense was charged as a felony”].) However, as
the parties concede in supplemental briefing, Cases I and II only charged misdemeanors,
and accordingly, any appeal from those cases must be brought in the appellate division of
the applicable Superior Court pursuant to sections 691, subdivision (g) and 1466. (See
§§ 691, subd. (g), 1466.)
3.
DISCUSSION5
Here, the parties agree, as do we, that the matter must be remanded for the trial
court to orally pronounce the applicable statutory citations for each imposed fine and fee
in Case III and for the corresponding probation minute order to be amended accordingly.
The absence of statutory citations for the $165 “restitution fine” and the $40 “[c]ourt
[s]ecurity [f]ee” and the absence of a statutory citation for the $35 “infraction fee” in the
minute order must be corrected.
On March 14, 2025, the trial court held a combined change of plea and sentencing
hearing. Defendant pled no contest in Cases I, II and III. The court accepted defendant’s
pleas and proceeded to sentencing.
In Case III, the trial court imposed 12 months’ conditional release, a $165
“restitution fine,” a $40 “[c]ourt [s]ecurity [f]ee,” a $35 “infraction fee” on count 3, and a
suspended $165 section 1202.44 fine.
After the sentencing hearing, the minute order from Case III shows defendant was
ordered to “[p]ay $165 SRF + $40 COA + $30 CCA.” It also stated defendant “shall pay
a probation revocation restitution fine in the sum of $165 pursuant to [section] 1202.44[,]
which shall become effective upon the revocation of probation,” and “+ $35 fm CT 3—
inf.”
On February 16, 2026, defendant wrote a letter to the trial court pursuant to
section 1237.2 and People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192 requesting the court list
the statutory basis for the imposed fines and fees.6
On February 27, 2026, the trial court issued an order stating, “[c]ourt takes no
action as the matter is in the 5th District of Court Appeals.”
5 We omit the facts of the underlying offenses, as they are irrelevant to defendant’s
appeal.
6 The statutory basis for the suspended section 1202.44 fine in Case III was
correctly noted in the corresponding minute order.
4.
“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.”
(People v. High, supra, 119 Cal.App.4th at p. 1200.) “An order of probation, like an
abstract of judgment, must specify the statutory basis of each fine or fee imposed.”
(People v. Eddards (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 712, 715 (Eddards).) A trial court’s failure
“to specify the amount and statutory basis for each fine, fee, and penalty assessment
[imposed]” is legal error. (People v. Hartley (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 620, 637.) Such
error may be reviewed on appeal even in the absence of an objection. (Ibid.)
Section 1237.2 provides that “[a]n 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.” (§ 1237.2.)
Here, defendant requested clarification of the statutory basis for the fines and fees
on February 16, 2026, pursuant to section 1237.2. The parties agree that the trial court’s
order on February 27, 2026, deferring action because defendant had already filed a notice
of appeal with our court on May 1, 2025, accordingly, permits us to consider the issue.
We further agree with the parties the statutory basis for the imposed fines and fees
were omitted from both the trial court’s oral pronouncement and the corresponding
probation minute order for Case III.
There are “several ways” for a trial court to sufficiently identify the statutes
applicable to the imposed fines and fees. (People v. Hartley, supra, 248 Cal.App.4th at
pp. 636–637.) A court may “ ‘recite the amount and statutory basis for any base fine and
5.
the amounts and statutory basis for any penalty assessments on the record …. [Citation.]
Or, in cases where the amounts and statutory basis for the penalty assessments have been
set forth in a probation report, a sentencing memorandum, or some other writing, the
court [may] state the amount and statutory basis for the base fine and make a shorthand
reference in its oral pronouncement to “penalty assessments as set forth in the” probation
report, memorandum, or writing….’ ” (Ibid.) A court may also adequately pronounce
judgment “by imposing a specific fine and generally referring to the applicable penalty
assessments.” (People v. Voit (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1373). However, the
“responsibility then falls to the trial court clerk to specify the penalties and surcharge in
appropriate amounts in the minutes and, more importantly, the abstract of judgment”
(People v. Sharret (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 859, 864) or the probation minute order
(Eddards, supra, 162 Cal.App.4th at p. 718). This includes providing a “statutory basis
of each fine or fee imposed.” (Id., at p. 715.)
Here, the trial court did not orally pronounce the statutory basis for the fines and
fees it imposed in Case III or refer to any writing in the record containing the relevant
citations, aside from the $165 section 1202.44 fine. Further, the corresponding probation
minute order for that case also fails to list the statutory citations for any of the fines and
fees imposed except the $165 section 1202.44 fine. The minute order for Case III also
incorrectly lists a “$30 CCA” fee that was not imposed orally by the court at the
sentencing hearing.
Accordingly, because the required information regarding the statutory basis for the
imposed fines and fees was omitted from the trial court’s oral pronouncement and
corresponding minute order, and one fee was included in a minute order that was not
imposed orally by the court, we vacate the sentence and remand the matter for
resentencing for the court to correct the errors. (See Eddards, supra, 162 Cal.App.4th at
p. 718.) On remand, the court must prepare an amended probation minute order
6.
specifying the “statutory basis of all fees, fines, and penalties imposed upon defendant.”
(Ibid.)
DISPOSITION
The sentence in Case III is vacated and the matter remanded for resentencing for
the trial court to state the statutory basis for the fines and fees imposed in that case. The
court is directed to prepare an amended probation minute order for Case III and forward
it to the appropriate parties. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
7.