P. v. Jorgenson





Filed 2/26/13 P. v. Jorgenson 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115







IN THE COURT OF
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE
DISTRICT

(Butte)

----






>

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JASON SCOTT JORGENSON, Defendant and Appellant.

C070589 (Super. Ct. No. CM035331)

Defendant
Jason Scott Jorgenson appeals from the judgment entered after he pleaded no
contest to committing a lewd act upon a child.
He contends on appeal the court erred in imposing href="http://www.sandiegohealthdirectory.com/">DNA penalty assessments
pursuant to Government Code
section 76104.7, and asks the abstract of judgment be amended to state the
statutory basis for the fines and fees imposed.
The People concede the errors, and we agree with the parties.

Defendant
first contends that the DNA penalty assessments imposed pursuant to Government
Code section 76104.7 must be stricken.
He is correct. The DNA penalty
assessment was enacted in two parts in November 2004 (Gov. Code,
§ 76104.6; Prop. 69, § IV.1, eff. Nov. 3, 2004) and July 2006 (Gov. Code, § 76104.7;
Stats. 2006, ch. 69, § 18, pp. 1251-1252, eff. July 12, 2006). The first enactment—Government Code
section 76104.6—came before the
crime of which defendant was convicted.
The second enactment—Government Code section 76104.7—came >after defendant’s crime. And in href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">People v. Batman (2008)
159 Cal.App.4th 587, this court held that a Government Code section
76104.6 penalty assessment “must be stricken because [the] defendant committed
the qualifying offense prior to the [statute’s] effective date.” (Batman,
at p. 591.) As the People
recognize, our reasoning in Batman is
equally applicable to a penalty assessment imposed under Government Code
section 76104.7. At sentencing, the
trial court announced it was imposing fines and fees in an aggregate amount “as
broken down on . . . page 13 . . . of the probation report.” The probation report indicates the trial
court imposed two fees under Government Code section 76104.7: one as a component of an aggregate fine of
$720, and another as a component of an aggregate fine of $1,080. We will modify the judgment by striking both
DNA penalty assessments imposed pursuant to Government Code section 76104.7.

Defendant
also contends the trial court erred in failing to separately state the fees,
fines, and penalties, or the statutory bases for imposing them. The People concede the error, and we
agree.

All fines,
fees, and penalties must be stated separately at sentencing, with the statutory
basis specified for each; the same is true for the href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">abstract of judgment. (People v.
High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200; see also People v. Eddards (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 712, 717-718
[extending and applying requirements to order of probation].) Here, the trial court separately stated these
matters neither at sentencing nor in the abstract of judgment. At sentencing, the trial court purported to
incorporate the probation report; the abstract of judgment states only the
aggregate fines, i.e., that defendant is ordered to “[p]ay $720 per PC672 [and]
[p]ay $1080 per PC [290.3].” These
descriptions are not adequate. “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.” (>High, at p. 1200.)

DISPOSITION

The
judgment is modified to strike the two DNA penalty assessments imposed pursuant
to Government Code section 76104.7. The
trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment that omits
those assessments and lists the amounts and statutory bases for the remaining
components of the fines, fees, and assessments imposed pursuant to href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">Penal Code sections 672 and 290.3, and to
delete the reference to Penal Code section 2903 under item 8 and replace it
with Penal Code section 290.3. The trial
court is further directed to forward a certified copy of the amended abstract
of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

As
modified, the judgment is affirmed.







RAYE , P. J.







We concur:







NICHOLSON , J.







DUARTE , J.