Error and/or relief
It was error to impose a $10 crime prevention fine under section 1202.5. It is ordered stricken. The minute order must be corrected to reflect that the resentencing proceedings were under section 1172.75, not under section 1172.6 as the minute order indicated.
First Holding:
The original imposition of the section 1202.5 crime prevention fine was unauthorized.
Authority:
People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354 [claims of unauthorized sentencing error may be raised at any time]
Second Holding:
Under section 1202.5(a), courts are required to impose a $10 crime prevention fine on a defendant who is convicted of a theft-related offense listed in the statute. Here, the $10 crime prevention fine was unauthorized because defendant’s convictions are not among the offenses listed in section 1202.5(a). Thus, we strike the $10 crime prevention fine from defendant’s sentence.
Authority:
PEN 1202.5(a)
People v. Jefferson (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 660, 663
Third Holding:
The minute orders refer to the proceedings as taking place pursuant to section 1172.6. As the record is clear these were resentencing proceedings pursuant to section 1172.75, this appears to be a clerical error.
[Gary note: The court did not cite any authority for the order or observation regarding the correction of the minute order, but there is authority aplenty. The court could have cited one or more of the cases I have set out below.]Authority:
People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185
People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070
People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831, 855
In re Black (1967) 66 Cal.2d 881, 890
People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385
People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2