P. v. Paulsen
Filed 6/26/08 P. v. Paulsen 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Lassen)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CASEY JOHN PAULSEN, Defendant and Appellant. | C057022 (Super. Ct. No. CR023911) |
Defendant Casey John Paulsen pled guilty to possessing psilocybin mushrooms, a felony, and driving on a suspended license, a misdemeanor. He was sentenced to state prison and was ordered to pay, among other things, $155, which includes penalty assessments of $105 for criminal lab analysis, pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11372.5[, subdivision (a)], and $465, which includes penalty assessments of $315, for the drug . . . program [fee] pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 11372.7[, subdivision (a)]. With respect to those required payments, the abstract of judgment filed on August 31, 2007, listed a $155 LAB FEE and a $465 Drug Program Fee per HS 11372.7(a). On January 9, 2008, the court filed an amended abstract of judgment listing a CRIME LAB FEE PER HS 11372.5(a): $50 FINE + 105 PENALTY ASSESSMENT = $155 TOTAL and a DRUG PROGRAM FEE PER HS 11372.7(a): $150 FINE + $315 PENALTY ASSESSMENT = $465 TOTAL.
Defendants sole contention on appeal is the minute order and abstract of judgment are incorrectly completed in that they do not reflect a break-down of the penalty assessments attached to [the criminal laboratory fee and the drug program fee].
The People concede the error, explaining that although the amended abstract of judgment separated the fees from the penalty assessments, this was insufficient because, without a breakdown [of the penalty assessments of $105 and $315], it is unclear how the court arrived at those amounts. As the People point out, there are separate statutes that impose separate penalty assessments calculated based on different percentages of the fee imposed by the court. We accept the Peoples concession.
DISCUSSION
The abstract of judgment filed by the trial court must separately list, with the statutory basis, all fines, fees and penalties imposed[.] (People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1201, italics added.) 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 no statutory obligation to collect a particular fee, . . . the fee [and penalty assessments] must be included in the abstract of judgment. [Citation.] (Id. at p. 1200.) Thus, we will direct the court to amend the abstract of judgment to include a breakdown of the penalty assessments attached to the criminal laboratory fee and the drug program fee.
The People also identify a second error in the amended abstract of judgment. In the same proceeding, defendant was sentenced in another case for a second Vehicle Code violation. The courts oral pronouncement of judgment states for each of [the] violations of Vehicle Code Section 14601.1, [defendant] is sentenced to six months in custody on each to [run] concurrently with the State prison term, and hes fined $989, which includes penalty assessments. However, the amended abstract of judgment does not include the sentence imposed in this case for the Vehicle Code conviction, and it does not show the fine that was imposed. We will direct the court to amend the abstract of judgment to reflect the six-month sentence imposed in this case for driving on a
suspended license, and the amount and statutory basis for the fine and penalty assessments imposed for that conviction.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to amend the minute order and abstract of judgment consistent with this opinion.
SCOTLAND, P.J.
We concur:
RAYE , J.
CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line attorney.
