legal news


Register | Forgot Password

PEOPLE v. KNIGHTBENT

PEOPLE v. KNIGHTBENT
08:24:2010



_










PEOPLE v. KNIGHTBENT













Filed 7/19/10













CERTIFIED
FOR PUBLICATION






IN THE COURT OF
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE
DISTRICT

(Tehama)

----








>






THE PEOPLE,



Plaintiff and Respondent,



v.



DIANE DAWN KNIGHTBENT,



Defendant and Appellant.




C061208



(Super.
Ct. No. NCR74974)








APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court
of Tehama
County, Dennis E. Murray, Judge. Affirmed as modified.



Peter
Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.



Edmund
G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Michael P. Farrell, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Catherine
Chatman, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.





In this case, the
services of an appointed counsel and a deputy attorney general, together with
three justices and staff of this court, are applied to the resolution of a
single issue: whether the court's order
imposing a $34 fine on defendant was proper under Penal Code section 1202.5,
subdivision (a) (hereafter § 1202.5(a)).[1] Defendant argues the court erred and the fine
must be reduced to $10.

We shall conclude
that indeed the court erred, but the error benefitted defendant and, as the
Attorney General correctly asserts, the court should have imposed a total fine
of $66. We shall modify the judgment
accordingly and affirm in all other respects.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND



Defendant was
accused of second degree robbery (§
211) and second degree burglary (§ 459).
She pled guilty to second degree robbery, with the burglary count and
the charges in two separate cases dismissed with a >Harvey
waiver. (People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.) On February
17, 2009, the trial court denied probation and sentenced defendant
to two years in prison (the low term).

The trial court
also imposed fees and fines which included a total assessment of $34
pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.5(a), as follows: $10 under section 1202.5(a) itself; $2 under
Government Code section 70373, subdivision (a); $5 under Government Code
section 70372, subdivision (a); $10 under Penal Code section 1464; and $7
under Government Code section 76000.

According to the
probation report, on April 12, 2008,
defendant was seen walking through a grocery store, putting items in a
bag. When she moved toward the exit, the
manager approached her and said, â€




Description In this case, the services of an appointed counsel and a deputy attorney general, together with three justices and staff of this court, are applied to the resolution of a single issue: whether the court's order imposing a $34 fine on defendant was proper under Penal Code section 1202.5, subdivision (a) (hereafter § 1202.5(a)).[1] Defendant argues the court erred and the fine must be reduced to $10.
We shall conclude that indeed the court erred, but the error benefitted defendant and, as the Attorney General correctly asserts, the court should have imposed a total fine of $66. Court shall modify the judgment accordingly and affirm in all other respects.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale