People v. Gallon CA4/1 ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • Filed 12/28/21 P. v. Gallon CA4/1
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
    COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION ONE
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    THE PEOPLE,                                                          D078357
    Plaintiff and Respondent,
    v.                                                         (Super. Ct. No. SCN395782)
    TONI GALLON,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
    Sim Von Kalinowski, Judge. Affirmed and remanded with directions.
    Matthew A. Lopas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
    Defendant and Appellant.
    Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters and Julie L. Garland,
    Assistant Attorneys General, Steve Oetting and Warren J. Williams, Deputy
    Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    Toni Gallon pleaded guilty to grand theft of personal property (Pen.
    Code,1 § 487, subd. (a)), admitting she unlawfully took another person’s
    1        Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
    property valued at more than $950. In exchange, the People dismissed other
    charges against her.
    Gallon contends and the People concede that (1) the order of formal
    probation must be modified because it does not reflect the court’s oral
    pronouncement; and (2) she is entitled to retroactively benefit from Assembly
    Bill Nos. 1869 and 1950. We affirm the judgment and remand with
    directions set forth below.
    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    At Gallon’s October 2020 sentencing hearing, the trial court suspended
    execution of a three-year sentence and granted Gallon three years formal
    probation, ordering her to serve 180 days in custody. Defense counsel
    objected to probation condition 6(n), requiring Gallon to submit to electronic
    search of her devices, and conditions 14(a), and 14(b), which require her to
    obtain substance abuse assessment and treatment. Counsel argued that no
    nexus existed between those conditions and Gallon’s crimes. The court
    agreed and struck those three conditions; however, that is not reflected in the
    court’s written order.
    Further, the court stated Gallon would no longer have to pay an $820
    fine under section 1465.7, subdivision (a). However, it ruled she was required
    to pay other fines set forth in the probation report (including a $154 criminal
    justice administration fee under Government Code section 29550.1,
    presentence investigation costs under section 1203.1b, and court-appointed
    attorney costs under section 9878 in monthly installments of $25, beginning
    six months after her release from custody. This again is not reflected in the
    court’s written order, which instead states that the $820 penalty is imposed,
    and that Gallon is required to pay $50 monthly fines, fees and assessments
    beginning in December 2020.
    2
    DISCUSSION
    I. The Written Probation Order
    We accept the People’s concession that the written order granting
    formal probation should be amended to strike probation conditions 6(n), 14(a)
    and 14(b) to conform to the court’s oral pronouncement. “In a criminal case,
    it is the oral pronouncement of sentence that constitutes the judgment.”
    (People v. Scott (2012) 
    203 Cal.App.4th 1303
    , 1324.) “Where there is a
    discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute
    order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.” (People
    v. Zackery (2007) 
    147 Cal.App.4th 380
    , 385; People v. Mesa (1975) 
    14 Cal.3d 466
    , 471 [rendition of judgment is an oral pronouncement; the record of the
    oral pronouncement of the court controls over the clerk’s minute order and
    abstract of judgment].) The written order should likewise be amended to
    reflect that the court ordered Gallon to pay $25 monthly toward the imposed
    fines, fees and assessments beginning six months after her release from local
    custody.
    II. Assembly Bill No. 1869
    At the sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed fines, fees and
    assessments “as stated in the probation report,” including a $154 criminal
    justice administration fee under Government Code section 29550.1,
    presentence investigation costs under Penal Code section 1203.1b, and court-
    appointed attorney costs under Penal Code section 987.8. After the
    sentencing hearing, the Governor signed into law Assembly Bill No. 1869,
    which effective July 1, 2021, eliminated many fines, fees, and assessments
    that courts imposed under a range of statutes. (Assem. Bill No. 1869 (2019-
    2020 Reg. Sess.) §§ 2, 62.)
    3
    Gallon contends that under Assembly Bill No. 1869, this court should
    strike the criminal justice administration fee, the repayment of the
    presentence investigation costs under section 1203.1b, and the cost of court-
    appointed counsel under section 987.8.
    Among other provisions, Assembly Bill No. 1869 added Government
    Code section 6111, which provides that “the unpaid balance of any court-
    imposed costs pursuant to [Government Code] Section 27712, subdivision (c)
    or (f) of Section 29550, and Sections 29550.1, 29550.2, and 29550.3, as those
    sections read on June 30, 2021, is unenforceable and uncollectible and any
    portion of a judgment imposing those costs shall be vacated.” (Gov. Code,
    § 6111, subd. (a).) Assembly Bill No. 1869 also added section 1465.9,
    subdivision (a) to the Penal Code: “On and after July 1, 2021, the balance of
    any court-imposed costs pursuant to Section 987.4, subdivision (a) of Section
    987.5, Sections 987.8, 1203, 1203.1e, 1203.016, 1203.018, 1203.1b, 1208.2,
    1210.15, 3010.8, 4024.2, and 6266, as those sections read on June 30, 2021,
    shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment
    imposing those costs shall be vacated.” (Stats. 2020, ch. 92, § 62.)
    As this court held in People v. Lopez-Vinck (2021) 
    68 Cal.App.5th 945
    ,
    950, under the plain language of Government Code section 6111,
    subdivision(a), the unpaid balance of the criminal justice administration fee
    is unenforceable and uncollectible, and the portion of the judgment imposing
    such costs must be vacated. (Gov. Code, § 6111, subd. (a).) We therefore
    vacate any unpaid balance of the costs imposed by the court under
    Government Code section 6111, subdivision (a) and Penal Code section
    1465.9 as of July 1, 2021.
    4
    III. Assembly Bill No. 1950
    We accept the People’s concession that Gallon is entitled to the benefit
    of Assembly Bill No. 1950, which the Governor signed into law on September
    30, 2020. (Stats. 2020, ch. 328, § 2.) Assembly Bill No. 1950 amended section
    1203.1 to limit felony probation terms to no longer than two years, except for
    certain offenses not relevant here. (See § 1203.1, subd. (m)(1).)
    The People acknowledge that this court has previously held that
    Assembly Bill No. 1950 applies retroactively to cases that were not final as of
    its January 1, 2021 effective date. (See People v. Sims (2021) 
    59 Cal.App.5th 943
     [concluding that under In re Estrada (1965) 
    63 Cal.2d 740
    , Assembly Bill
    No. 1950’s “limitation on the maximum duration of felony probation terms
    constitutes an ameliorative change to the criminal law that applies
    retroactively to cases that were not reduced to final judgment as of the new
    law’s effective date”].) Under Sims, the new law applies to this case, which
    was not final as of January 1, 2021.
    We remand the matter to the trial court to correct the minute order
    governing the length and terms of probation to reflect a two-year term of
    formal probation.
    5
    DISPOSITION
    We affirm the judgment. On remand, the trial court is directed to
    correct the minute order to reflect that probation conditions 6(n), 14(a) and
    14(b) are stricken; Gallon is to pay her fines, fees and assessments in $25
    monthly installments beginning six months after her release from local
    custody; under Government Code section 6111 and Penal Code section
    1465.9, any portion of money imposed that is unpaid as of July 1, 2021, is
    vacated; and Gallon’s probation term is reduced to two years. The court is to
    notify the San Diego County Department of Probation of these changes.
    O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.
    WE CONCUR:
    IRION, J.
    DO, J.
    6
    

Document Info

Docket Number: D078357

Filed Date: 12/28/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/28/2021