C102944M
Cal. Ct. App.Sep 2, 2025Background
- Defendant Frank Rackley was convicted in 2012 of two counts each of forcible rape and forcible sexual penetration; jury found multiple-victim enhancements and the trial court found prior serious-felony, strike, and prior prison-term allegations.
- Original aggregate sentence included long determinate and indeterminate terms, heavy fines, and various fees (including a $300 Penal Code §290.3 serious habitual offender program fine, $340.01 main jail booking fee, $62.09 main jail classification fee, and $130 in penalty assessments tied to the §290.3 fine).
- After the Department of Corrections notified the trial court of resentencing eligibility under Penal Code §1172.75, the court conducted a resentencing hearing in Dec. 2024: it dismissed the prior prison-term enhancement, struck three of four prior serious-felony enhancements, reimposed prior fines and fees, and adjusted custody credits.
- The trial court orally imposed a $300 §290.3 fine, but the abstract of judgment listed that fine as $200; the court also reimposed the now-repealed main jail fees under Government Code former §29550.2 and imposed unspecified penalty assessments on the §290.3 fine.
- On appeal under People v. Wende procedures, the Court of Appeal found clerical and legal errors in the abstract and in the imposition of certain costs and assessments and ordered corrections and vacation of specified charges.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Rackley’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of main jail booking and classification fees (Gov. Code former §29550.2) | Court reimposed prior fees; implicitly left fees in place | Fees invalid because statute was repealed and cannot be imposed | Vacated those fees; cannot impose costs under repealed statute (Gov. Code §6111 requires vacation) |
| Penalty assessments on the §290.3 fine (statutory basis unspecified) | Assessments were imposed as part of sentence | Assessments invalid because trial court/abstract never specified statutory basis | Vacated the $130 penalty assessment for lack of an identified statutory basis; abstract must list amounts and statutory bases |
| Discrepancy in amount of §290.3 fine (oral $300 vs abstract $200) | No substantive challenge to the oral pronouncement | Abstract must reflect oral judgment | Ordered correction of abstract to show $300 §290.3 fine (oral pronouncement controls) |
| Overall appellate review under People v. Wende | Affirm judgment as entered | No supplemental brief filed asserting other errors | After review, no other arguable issues; judgment affirmed as modified |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (counsel-led, record review procedure for indigent appeals)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero), 13 Cal.4th 497 (discretion to dismiss or strike prior strike convictions)
- People v. Hamed, 221 Cal.App.4th 928 (abstract must list amount and statutory basis for penalty assessments)
- People v. Sharret, 191 Cal.App.4th 859 (requirements for identifying statutory basis of penalty assessments)
- People v. Mitchell, 26 Cal.4th 181 (oral pronouncement controls over abstract of judgment)
- People v. Serrano, 100 Cal.App.5th 1324 (discussing interaction of §1385 and Three Strikes sentencing in context)