Filed 9/4/18 P. v. Hughes CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v.
ANTHONY Q. HUGHES, Defendant and Appellant. |
A152842
(San Francisco City and County Super. Ct. No. 220671) |
THE COURT:*
Anthony Q. Hughes was convicted of second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)),[1] and sentenced to 16 years to life. The trial court ordered Hughes to pay $20,040 in victim restitution, plus interest, “plus an administrative fee not to exceed 15 percent of the restitution owed ( . . . § 1203.1(l)).” In this appeal,[2] Hughes contends the administrative fee is unauthorized and must be stricken because section 1203.1, subdivision (l), applies when a defendant is ordered to pay victim restitution as a condition of probation. Here, the court ordered Hughes to pay victim restitution pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivisions (a) and (f), and not as a condition of probation. Therefore, Hughes requests that we “vacate the trial court’s order requiring appellant to pay a 15 percent administrative fee in addition to direct victim restitution, and remand the case to the trial court to issue a new restitution order which does not include any administrative fee.”
The Attorney General concedes the administrative fee must be stricken. However, rather than remanding for a new restitution order, the Attorney General argues the abstract of judgment may be clarified by indicating the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) must deduct restitution payments and an administrative fee of up to 10 percent from Hughes’s inmate earnings. (§ 2085.5, subds. (c), (e).) The Attorney General requests “that the abstract of judgment be amended to designate the amount and source of administrative fees to be collected by the CDCR in conjunction with the court’s victim restitution order.”
Having reviewed section 2085.5, subdivisions (c) and (e), we agree with the Attorney General that victim restitution payments made from Hughes’s prison wages or trust account deposits, if any, will be subject to an administrative fee not to exceed 10 percent of the amount collected. Hughes does not contest this point because he has not filed a reply brief. We note the trial court utilized Judicial Council Forms, forms CR‑110 (Order for Victim Restitution) and CR-111 (Abstract of Judgment—Restitution). Accordingly, we strike the administrative fee imposed pursuant to section 1203.1, subdivision (l), and we remand for the trial court to appropriately amend these forms.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified to strike the administrative fee imposed pursuant to section 1203.1, subdivision (l). Upon issuance of the remittitur, the trial court is directed to prepare an amended order for victim restitution (Judicial Council Forms, form CR‑110) and an amended abstract of judgment (form CR-111) indicating Anthony Q. Hughes must pay the victim, Tom Valdez, restitution in the amount of $20,040, plus interest at 10 percent per year from the date of sentence, and restitution payments deducted from Hughes’s prison wages or trust account deposits will be subject to an administrative fee not to exceed 10 percent of the amount collected pursuant to section 2085.5, subdivisions (c) and (e). The trial court shall forward a copy of the amended order and a certified copy of the amended abstract of judgment to the CDCR.
In all other respects, we affirm.
* Before Jones, P.J., Simons, J., and Needham, J. We resolve this case by a memorandum opinion pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, Standard 8.1.
[1] All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
[2] Hughes also appealed from his judgment of conviction, which this court affirmed. (People v. Hughes (Aug. 27, 2018, A149792) [nonpub. opn.].)
