Opinion
D058590
10-06-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JESSE AARON ANDRYS, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Super. Ct. No. SCD224067)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David J. Danielsen, Judge. Affirmed.
Jesse Aaron Andrys entered into a plea agreement in which he pled guilty to sale of a controlled substance in return for dismissal of the remaining count and allegations and a stipulated three-year prison term. The sentence also included certain fines and the calculation of custody and behavior credits.
Andrys filed a timely notice of appeal and challenged the fines imposed by the trial court and challenged the calculation of custody credits. Andrys has since received an adjustment of the custody credits by the trial court and has withdrawn his argument regarding credits.
Andrys specific challenge to the fines imposed by the trial court is that the fines, other than the restitution fine, are not properly delineated in the abstract of judgment. The People agree that the abstract of judgment must be amended and ask that we remand the case to the trial court for the purpose of properly delineating the fines, fees and penalty assessments in the abstract of judgment. We agree with the parties that the abstract of judgment must be amended and remand the case to the trial court with directions.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
At the sentencing hearing the trial court imposed a restitution fine of $200. In addition it imposed a parole revocation fine of $200 (Pen. Code, § 1202.45), which was stayed unless parole was revoked. The court imposed a $30 security fee (§ 1465.8), a criminal justice administration fee, a drug program fee "as required" and a lab analysis fee "as required." The court specified those fees as $154, $570 and $190 respectively, including penalty assessments. The court did not specify the amounts of the penalty assessments and surcharges included in those amounts.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
DISCUSSION
In People v. Sharret (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 859, 870-871, the court held that a sentencing court must specify the amounts of penalties and surcharges attached to the various fines and fees imposed by the court. The court in Sharret required that the amounts of the penalties and surcharges be specifically set forth in the abstract of judgment. (Id. at p. 864.) The People agree with the rule established in Sharret and join Andrys in requesting that this case be remanded so that the abstract of judgment can be amended to properly segregate the fees from the penalties. We agree and will remand the case with directions.
DISPOSITION
The case is remanded to the superior court with directions to amend the abstract of judgment in accordance with the views expressed in this opinion. The court is directed to forward an amended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J. WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
AARON, J.