P. v. Coonrod

Filed 10/3/06 P. v. Coonrod CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Butte)

----

Pursuant to a negotiated plea, defendant David Tyson Coonrod pled no contest to committing a lewd act upon a child (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a); undesignated section references are to the Penal Code) in exchange for “no immediate state prison” and dismissal of a remaining charge. Imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on five years formal probation on conditions, among others, that he serve 90 days in county jail and “obey all the general terms [of probation], including the fines necessary to be paid.” One of the general terms of defendant’s probation was to “[p]ay fines, restitution and fees as specified on the FINANCIAL OBLIGATION PAGE attached and as ordered by the Court.” The financial obligation page specified $2,570 in fines and fees, including a $700 fine for the underlying offense, a $200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $700 sex offender fine (§ 290.3), a $25 criminal justice administration fee, a $445 fee for the presentence investigation report, a $420 public defender fee (§ 987.8), a $25 work program fee, a $20 court security fee (§ 1465.8), and a $35 administrative fee.

Defendant admitted violating the conditions of his probation by testing positive for methamphetamine; probation was terminated, and he was sentenced to the middle term of six years in prison, with credit for 133 days (116 actual days and 17 good conduct). (§ 2933.1.) The trial court affirmed the imposition of the “previously imposed [$200] restitution fund fine,” and imposed a parole revocation fine in the same amount (§ 1202.45), as well as a $20 “security surcharge“ (§ 1465.8), reserved jurisdiction over victim restitution and found “no ability [to pay] on public defender fees.” The court also ordered defendant to “provide specimens of blood, saliva, thumb and palm prints” and recommended “drug and alcohol counseling while at the Department of Corrections“ and that defendant “attend a sex offender therapy program as a condition of parole.”

The only fines and fees reflected in the abstract of judgment are those that were imposed when defendant was sentenced to prison: a $200 restitution fine, a $200 parole revocation fine, and a $20 court security fee.

Defendant appeals, having failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5.)

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief.

Following our review of the record, we requested supplemental briefing on whether the fines and fees reflected in the terms and conditions of formal probation were actually imposed and, if so, whether any of those fines and fees should be reflected in the abstract of judgment. Having reviewed the supplemental briefing and the entire record, we conclude the fines and fees reflected in the terms and conditions of formal probation were imposed at the time defendant was placed on probation. However, we cannot tell whether the $700 fine for the underlying offense, the $700 sex offender fine, the $25 criminal justice administration fee, the $445 fee for the presentence investigation report, the $25 work program fee, and the $35 administrative fee were erroneously omitted from the abstract or whether the trial court intended that they not be carried over into the judgment and sentence to state prison either because defendant paid them or because, at least with respect to some of the fines and fees, defendant was unable to pay them. Accordingly, we shall remand the matter for an express determination as to whether those fines and fees should be included in the judgment and sentence to state prison.

DISPOSITION

The matter is remanded to the trial court for an express determination as to whether the following fines and fees should be included in the judgment and sentence: a $700 fine for the underlying offense, a $700 sex offender fine, a $25 criminal justice administration fee, a $445 fee for the presentence investigation report, a $25 work program fee, and a $35 administrative fee. Should the trial court determine that some or all of those fines and/or fees should have been included in the abstract of judgment, the trial court is directed to amend the abstract and to forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The judgment is otherwise affirmed.

SIMS , Acting P.J.

We concur:

HULL , J.

CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line Lawyers.