People v. Clark, A158238

Background

In 2017 Clark pleaded no contest to possession of a firearm by a felon and threatening a police officer; the court imposed a 3-year 8-month sentence but suspended execution and granted 5 years probation.
At sentencing the court orally ordered various assessments and a probation supervision fee "not to exceed $100 per month" under former Penal Code §1203.1b; clerk’s minutes and the abstract of judgment listed a $470 “Criminal Violation Distribution” and a $570 total.
Clark violated probation in 2019; the court executed the original sentence, orally imposed a $300 probation revocation fine and “all outstanding fines and fees,” and the abstract again reflected assorted fees including the $470 item.
Clark appealed the 2019 order. While the appeal was pending, Assembly Bill 1869 (Stats. 2020, ch. 92) repealed §1203.1b and made specified court-imposed costs unenforceable and required vacation of that portion of judgments imposing them as of July 1, 2021.
Clark sought vacatur of the monthly $100 probation supervision fee under Assembly Bill 1869 and requested the $470 clerical “Criminal Violation Distribution” entry be struck as unsupported by the oral pronouncement.
The court addressed appealability under Penal Code §1237.2 before reaching the merits, then held the probation fee must be vacated under Assembly Bill 1869 and the $470 clerical entry must be corrected in the abstract of judgment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appealability under Penal Code §1237.2	The People argued the judgment was final and §1237.2 authorizes trial-court correction of fines/fees; Clark forfeited by not raising errors earlier.	Clark argued appeal is cognizable because the issues are not solely calculation/imposition of fines and the appellate court has jurisdiction.	The court held §1237.2 does not bar the appeal because Clark’s challenge to the probation fee depends on a post-judgment change in law (not an error at imposition), so the appeal is properly heard here.
Validity / retroactive effect of Assembly Bill 1869 on $100 monthly probation supervision fee	AG conceded the fee became uncollectible after July 1, 2021 but argued vacatur of the portion of the judgment was not the bill’s required remedy.	Clark argued he is entitled to retroactive relief and vacatur of the probation supervision fee portion of the judgment.	The court held Assembly Bill 1869 makes such fees unenforceable and mandates vacation of the portion of the judgment imposing them; the $100 fee must be stricken from the judgment.
$470 "Criminal Violation Distribution" entry in minutes/abstract (clerical error)	The People did not persuasively show the trial court orally imposed a $470 "Criminal Violation Distribution" fine.	Clark argued the $470 entry is clerical error and inconsistent with the oral pronouncement.	The court treated the entry as clerical error, struck the $470 item from the abstract/minutes, and remanded to allow the trial court to correct the abstract and specify which fines/assessments it intended to impose.

Key Cases Cited

In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (California 1965) (presumption of retroactivity for ameliorative criminal statutes)
People v. Esquivel, 11 Cal.5th 671 (California 2021) (suspended-execution sentences are not final for Estrada retroactivity)
People v. McKenzie, 9 Cal.5th 40 (California 2020) (analysis of finality and retroactivity distinctions for suspended-imposition sentences)
People v. France, 58 Cal.App.5th 714 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (order executing a suspended sentence is not final for Estrada purposes)
People v. Delgado, 210 Cal.App.4th 761 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (section analogous to §1237.2 does not bar appellate resolution when the issue is which statutory version applies)
People v. Mitchell, 26 Cal.4th 181 (California 2001) (appellate courts may correct clerical errors in abstracts of judgment)
People v. Zackery, 147 Cal.App.4th 380 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (oral pronouncement controls over minute orders and abstracts when discrepancy exists)