Error and/or relief
The abstract of judgment erroneously reflects a fine of $300 that was not imposed by the trial court. It must be corrected. Further, the matter must be remanded for the court to give the defendant the opportunity to challenge the imposition of any fine as constitutionally.
First Holding:
As a general rule, when there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the trial court’s records, the oral pronouncement controls. The clerk cannot supplement the judgment the court actually pronounced by adding a provision to the minute order and the abstract of judgment.
Authority:
People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2.
People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 387–388
Second Holding:
While this appeal was pending, the California Supreme Court addressed the means by which a criminal defendant may challenge various payments typically imposed at sentencing. Those payments fall into three broad categories: fines, ancillary costs, and victim restitution.
As to fines, Kopp did not find a due process requirement to hold an ability to pay hearing before imposing every punitive fine. Instead, Kopp clarified that an excessive fines analysis, which includes consideration of ability to pay, is the proper vehicle to challenge punitive fines” under either the federal or state Constitutions.
As to ancillary costs, Kopp clarified that an equal protection analysis is appropriate and held that equal protection principles require a court, upon request, to consider a defendant’s inability to pay before imposing a court operations assessment.
As to restitution, Kopp reiterated that crime victims have a right to secure restitution from the persons convicted of the crimes causing the losses they suffer.
Authority:
People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 11, 12, 23, fn. 17, 30
Third Holding:
Because the defendant did not have the benefit of Kopp’s reasoning and did not invoke the excessive fines clauses in the trial court, consistent with Kopp, we remand to give him the opportunity to assert the legal analyses applicable to such a challenge and argue how the particular facts of this case inform such an inquiry.
Authority:
People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 23