Error and/or relief
We remand for the limited purpose of allowing the trial court to conduct a hearing on whether to impose the ancillary costs in light of Kopp. The minute order and abstracts of judgment do not reflect the order of the court and must be corrected following that hearing.
First Holding:
At the sentencing hearing, the court did not mention, much less impose, fees under either section 1465.8 or Government Code section 70373. As for restitution fines, defense counsel requested the court consider staying any fines, and the court stated that it was striking the restitution fine and the parole revocation restitution fine, indicating that if that was found to be error on appeal, the court’s intent would be to impose the minimum $300 for both fines.
The minute order, however, reflects that the court ordered the fines in thh amount of $10,000. It then stated that the amounts were suspended. The minute order also included a court operations fee of $80 and a criminal conviction fee of $60. The abstract of judgment did not reflect the restitution fines, but did reflect the other two fees.
The judgment is controlled by the court’s oral pronouncements.
Authority:
People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [An abstract of judgment is not the judgment of conviction; it does not control if different from the trial court’s oral judgment and may not add to or modify the judgment it purports to digest or summarize.]
People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 387–388 [The clerk cannot supplement the judgment the court actually pronounced by adding a provision to the minute order and the abstract of judgment.]
Second Holding:
Section 1465.8(a)(1) provides, in part: “To assist in funding court operations, an assessment of forty dollars ($40) shall be imposed on every conviction for a criminal offense.” Government Code section 70373(a)(1) provides, in part: “To ensure and maintain adequate funding for court facilities, an assessment shall be imposed on every conviction for a criminal offense. The assessment shall be imposed in the amount of thirty dollars ($30) for each misdemeanor or felony.”
The trial court was required to impose these ancillary costs unless it granted defendant fee waivers. The court took neither action at the sentencing hearing. This was error.
Authority:
People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 25-26, 29-30
Third Holding:
Although the omission of mandatory assessments may be corrected for the first time on appeal, if we were to do that, the fees would be imposed without defendant having had the opportunity to request they be waived.
Instead, we will remand the matter for the trial court to correct the minutes from the sentencing hearing and to determine whether to impose the court operations fee and the criminal conviction fee consistent with Kopp.
Authority:
People v. Castellanos (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1524, 1530
Fourth Holding:
The People did not object when the trial court struck the restitution fine and the parole revocation restitution fine.
When a party fails to object, at the time of sentencing, to a trial court’s decision regarding the imposition of restitution fines, the waiver doctrine precludes appellate relief.
The court struck the restitution fine at the sentencing hearing. Thus, to the extent the court’s minutes reflect otherwise, the minutes should be modified to strike the restitution fines.
Authority:
People v. Tillman (2000) 22 Cal.4th 300, 302–303
People v. Frederickson (2020) 8 Cal.5th 963, 1027