section 672 fine in California

2014Absent an expressly negotiated term in the plea bargain concerning the fine, [there is] no basis to conclude that imposition of a fine within the statutory range constitutes more punishment than what the defendant bargained for.” (Villalobos, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 184 .) Thus, applying Villalobos, supra, 54 Cal.4th 177 to the instant case, a section 672 felony fine is analogous to the amount of a restitution fine above the minimal amount, and the parties are free to reach any agreement concerning the amount of the fine they find mutually agreeable.

2014Absent an expressly negotiated term in the plea bargain concerning the fine, [there is] no basis to conclude that imposition of a fine within the statutory range constitutes more punishment than what the defendant bargained for.” (Villalobos, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 184 .) Thus, applying Villalobos, supra, 54 Cal.4th 177 to the instant case, a section 672 felony fine is analogous to the amount of a restitution fine above the minimal amount, and the parties are free to reach any agreement concerning the amount of the fine they find mutually agreeable.

2017Of them, two no longer exist [citations]; three are subject to a fine under the criminalizing statute itself [citations]; eight are subject to a fine of up to $20,000 under section 11372, subdivision (a) [citations]; and the remaining 16 are punishable by confinement in either prison or county jail and are therefore subject to a fine under Penal Code section 672. [Citations.] Thus, the second paragraph of section 11372.5[, subdivision] (a) apparently describes a null set." ( Watts, supra, 2 Cal.App.5th at p. 236 , 206 Cal.Rptr.3d 202 .) The Watts court explained, "We have been unable to trace

2017Here, although the statute under which Watts was convicted, section 11378, does not provide for a base fine, the offense is punishable by imprisonment in county jail [citations] and is thus subject to a fine under Penal Code section 672." ( Id. at pp. 235-236, 206 Cal.Rptr.3d 202 .) The Watts court discovered there was a significant problem with the second paragraph of section 11375.5.

2016(People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 387-388 .) As we explained in People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200 , “[a]lthough we recognize that a detailed recitation of all the fees, fines and penalties on the record may be tedious, California law does not authorize shortcuts.” Accordingly, we vacate the surcharges appended to the $300 fine and the “[p]enalty assessments total sum of $500” order and direct the trial court on remand to separately state each and every fee, fine and/or penalty included in those amounts and the statutory basis therefore.

2013(Ibid.) Thus, the minute order and abstract of judgment must be amended to reflect the trial court’s pronouncement, which did not include a section 672 fine.2 (See People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385 .) II Defendant also contends the trial court improperly imposed a 10 percent ($24) surcharge on his $240 restitution fine, pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (l).3 He contends it cannot be imposed because the record does not support a finding that the amount imposed is the actual cost incurred by the county.

2016(People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 387-388 .) As we explained in People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200 , “[a]lthough we recognize that a detailed recitation of all the fees, fines and penalties on the record may be tedious, California law does not authorize shortcuts.” Accordingly, we vacate the surcharges appended to the $300 fine and the “[p]enalty assessments total sum of $500” order and direct the trial court on remand to separately state each and every fee, fine and/or penalty included in those amounts and the statutory basis therefore.

2016(People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200 .) The record indicates, however, that the $850 amount includes a fine and other fees and assessments.

2014(People v. Shah (1949) 91 Cal.App.2d 716, 721 .) The Breazell court concluded that because section 11372 provided for a base fine, the fine imposed under Penal Code section 672 for the same offense was unauthorized, as Penal Code section 672 included a limiting provision which “was meant to ensure that a fine pursuant to section 672 would not be imposed if another statute authorized a fine for the offense.” (Breazell, supra, 104 Cal.App.4th at p. 304 .) Here, in contrast, the trial court imposed only one base fine for defendant’s count of conviction.

2013(People v. Shah (1949) 91 Cal.App.2d 716, 721 .) The parties agree the trial court erred in imposing a fine pursuant to section 672 because a separate fine for the methamphetamine manufacturing offense was authorized -- and imposed -- pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11379.6.3 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 Section 672 provides in pertinent part: “Upon a conviction for any crime punishable by imprisonment in any jail or prison, in relation to which no fine is herein prescribed, the court may impose a fine on the offender not exceeding one thousand dollar

2022(See Walz, supra, 160 Cal.App.4th at p. 1371 .) In light of the foregoing, we reduce the total section 672 fine from $1,240 to $1,220 (i.e., the Gov.

2017The First District, Division Three, was similarly swayed, and recently published Webb, supra, 13 Cal.App.5th 486 , 220 Cal.Rptr.3d 679 .

2017The First District, Division Three, was similarly swayed, and recently published Webb, supra, 13 Cal.App.5th 486 , 220 Cal.Rptr.3d 679 .

2016(People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070 ; People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471 .) The trial court’s oral pronouncement of “surcharges” appended to the $300 fine under Penal Code section 672, and “[p]enalty assessments” totaling $500 may include these fines and fees, but the court did not so designate and a court clerk cannot supplement the judgment orally pronounced by adding them in the abstract.

2016(People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070 ; People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471 .) The trial court’s oral pronouncement of “surcharges” appended to the $300 fine under Penal Code section 672, and “[p]enalty assessments” totaling $500 may include these fines and fees, but the court did not so designate and a court clerk cannot supplement the judgment orally pronounced by adding them in the abstract.

2016(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.25(b)(5); In re Jordan (1992) 4 Cal.4th 116, 130 .) We will address defendant’s appellate contentions. 3 II Defendant argues the trial court erred in imposing the section 672 fine for the grand theft offense because the court also imposed a fine pursuant to section 1202.5, subdivision (a).

2014(See Dickerson, supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at p. 1385 [non-bargained for fines did not violate plea agreement, in part because probation report warned defendant of such possible fines].) In light of these admonitions, defendant could not “reasonably could have understood the negotiated plea agreement to signify that no substantial fine would imposed.” (In re Moser (1993) 6 Cal.4th 342 , 356 discussing Walker, supra, 54 Cal.3d 1013 .) Further, as part of the plea colloquy the court also asked defendant: “[H]as anyone promised you anything other than that which has been stated here in open court to

2014(E.g., People v. Andrade (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 351, 354 .) The trial court’s finding that defendant had no ability to pay a section 290.3 fine does not alter our conclusion. 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 II DNA Penalty Assessment Defendant contends in the alternative that, if the section 672 fine is not invalid in its entirety, the $80 DNA penalty assessment upon that fine must be stricken because the authorizing statute was enacted in 2006 following his commission of the offense between December 2001, and November 2005.

2014(Crandell, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 1309 .) In sum, because the amount of the penal fine was neither made part of defendant’s plea agreement nor otherwise specified in the plea colloquy, it was left to the trial court’s discretion.

2014(See Dickerson, supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at p. 1385 [non-bargained for fines did not violate plea agreement, in part because probation report warned defendant of such possible fines].) In light of these admonitions, defendant could not “reasonably could have understood the negotiated plea agreement to signify that no substantial fine would imposed.” (In re Moser (1993) 6 Cal.4th 342 , 356 discussing Walker, supra, 54 Cal.3d 1013 .) Further, as part of the plea colloquy the court also asked defendant: “[H]as anyone promised you anything other than that which has been stated here in open court to

2014(See Dickerson, supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at p. 1385 [non-bargained for fines did not violate plea agreement, in part because probation report warned defendant of such possible fines].) In light of these admonitions, defendant could not “reasonably could have understood the negotiated plea agreement to signify that no substantial fine would imposed.” (In re Moser (1993) 6 Cal.4th 342 , 356 discussing Walker, supra, 54 Cal.3d 1013 .) Further, as part of the plea colloquy the court also asked defendant: “[H]as anyone promised you anything other than that which has been stated here in open court to

2014Code, § 11372.7, subd. (a)) is “a fine and/or a penalty.” (People v. Sierra (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1690, 1696 .) Accordingly, we agree with Kerns that the trial court in this case was not authorized to impose an additional fine under section 672, which is “not … imposed if another statute authorize[s] 12. a fine for the offense.” (Breazell, supra, 104 Cal.App.4th at p. 304 .) The section 672 fine of $940 must be stricken from the judgment.

2014Although the trial court relied on the wrong code section in imposing the fine, the fine did not constitute an unauthorized sentence. “[T]he ‘unauthorized sentence’ concept constitutes a narrow exception to the general requirement that only those claims properly raised and preserved by the parties are reviewable on appeal.” (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354 .) “[A] sentence is generally ‘unauthorized’ where it could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case.” (Ibid., italics added.) The $780 penal fine imposed here did not constitute an unauthorized sentenc