Error and/or relief
On appeal following remand from the defendant’s first appeal, the trial court failed to impose sentence on several counts whose punishment it stayed under section 654. It failed to impose a fine on a fifth count, and it improperly reimposed several other fines.
First Holding:
The court’s failure to pronounce sentence on some of the counts constitutes an unauthorized sentence. When a trial court determines that section 654 applies, the court must impose sentence on every count but stay execution as necessary to implement section 654. This procedure also applies when one of the sentences pertains to a misdemeanor conviction.
Authority:
People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1472
People v. Mani (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 343, 380
Second Holding:
The defendant’s conviction under Vehicle Code section 23152(a) (driving under the influence) requires a fine, but the court failed to impose a fine.
Authority:
VEH 23536(a)
VEH 23600
People v. Anderson (2020) 9 Cal.5th 946, 962 [defining an unauthorized sentence as one that cannot lawfully be imposed under any circumstances in a particular case]
Third Holding:
Having concluded that the trial court’s failure to impose sentences and to impose a fine resulted in an unauthorized sentence, we also conclude that remand is required to correct the errors. In other cases, we have exercised our authority under section 1260 to modify judgments in sentencing matters where remand would be futile or unnecessary because the record clearly indicated how the trial court would exercise its sentencing discretion.
Here, however, the trial court did not impose sentences on counts two, four, seven, and nine or the firearm enhancement associated with count two, or impose a fine on count six, either at the original sentencing or at the section 1172.75 resentencing. Given the range of sentencing options for the omitted counts and enhancement and the permissible range of the fine on count six, the record does not clearly indicate what sentences or fine the court would have imposed. Accordingly, remand is required.
Authority:
People v. Gutierrez (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1894, 1896
People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1473
Fourth Holding:
We disagree with the People that on remand, the defendant is entitled to a full resentencing. Section 1260 grants appellate courts the authority to order limited remands for further proceedings that may be appropriate under the circumstances. In resentencing the defendant in 2025, the trial court considered the relevant factors in formulating a sentence it deemed appropriate based on his culpability, criminal history, and his risk of future dangerousness.
The two limited tasks on remand (imposing and staying sentences on the omitted counts that the court had already indicated it intended to stay and imposing a fine on count six) will not alter the overall sentencing scheme the trial court deemed appropriate such that resentencing on all nine counts would be required.
For these reasons, we order a limited remand.
Authority:
PEN 1260
People v. Wilson (2024) 16 Cal.5th 874, 948-949
People v. Stevens (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1452, 1456 [Correcting a sentencing error by excising only the flawed component of the sentence from the aggregate term may be appropriate in some contexts where the interests of justice and judicial economy do not require a restructuring of the entire sentencing format]
Fifth Holding:
The court erred in reimposing and staying several fees, despite making an implied finding that the defendant did not have an ability to pay. Equal protection principles require a court, upon request, to consider a defendant’s inability to pay before imposing a court operations assessment under Penal Code section 1465.8(a)(1) or a court facilities assessment under Government Code section 70373(a)(1).
Neither of the applicable statutes nor Kopp allows a trial court to impose then stay the court operations fee or the court facilities fee after it finds a defendant indigent. Once it found the defendant lacked the ability to pay, the court’s option was to not impose the fees.
Authority:
People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1
Sixth Holding:
The statutes authorizing certain other fees that were previously imposed have since been repealed and are now unenforceable and uncollectible. Any portion of a judgment imposing those fees must be vacated.
Authority:
GOV 6111(a)