People v. Soto
200 Cal. Rptr. 3d 247
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- On August 25, 2014, police stopped Mario Lopez Soto following a report related to a protective order; they detected alcohol and found beer cans in his vehicle.
- Soto pleaded nolo contendere to driving with BAC ≥ 0.08% with priors (Veh. Code §23152(b)) and driving with a suspended license (Veh. Code §14601.2(a)), admitted priors, and was placed on five years of formal probation with sentence suspended.
- As a condition of probation the court ordered Soto not to change residence from Monterey County or leave California without probation officer or court permission; Soto objected below and appealed that condition.
- The court also ordered various fines, penalty assessments, and administrative fees (including a $390 base fine, multiple penalty assessments, a $300 restitution fine plus an additional $150 restitution fine for the suspended-license count, a $25 fee under Pen. Code §1463.07, and a $55 installment-account fee under Pen. Code §1205(e)).
- On appeal Soto challenged (1) the residence/leave-the-state probation condition as unrelated to future criminality and overbroad and (2) the legality/amount/proper procedure for several fines and fees.
- The Court of Appeal modified the probation order: it struck the residence restriction, reduced or struck several fees (and clarified that one fee must be ordered separately), and otherwise affirmed as modified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Soto) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of probation condition barring change of residence/leave state without approval | Condition aids supervision and rehabilitation; assists probation officer in ensuring compliance | Condition unrelated to DUI or suspended-license crimes, not reasonably related to future criminality and infringes travel rights | Struck: condition unreasonable on these facts (no record support linking residence to future criminality) |
| Proper amount of Gov. Code §76000 penalty | $273 (70% of $390 base fine) was properly imposed | Should be $195 (Monterey County reduced $5 per $10 under §76000(e)) | Reduced to $195 (court assumed county surcharge exists for judicial economy but noted trial court should find facts on remand ordinarily) |
| Validity of $25 administrative fee under Pen. Code §1463.07 | Fee proper | Fee improper because §1463.07 applies only when defendant was arrested and released on own recognizance; Soto was not | Struck (People conceded fee erroneous) |
| Validity and amount of $55 installment-account fee under Pen. Code §1205(e) and whether it may be a probation condition | Fee can be imposed and applied to felony when installment plan authorized; may be probation condition | No record shows an installment payment order; fee unauthorized or limited to $30 for non-installment accounts; fee collateral and must be separately ordered | Reduced to $30 and clarified that the fee must be imposed as a separate court order (People conceded it cannot be a probation condition) |
| Legality of two restitution fines (total $450) given single act and §654 | Multiple fines permissible as within statutory ranges; harmless error if two fines totaled within limits | Multiple restitution fines violate §654 because both punish same single act | Struck the $150 restitution fine for the suspended-license count (multiple punishments barred by §654) |
| Whether various penalty assessments/fees (Gov. Code §§70372, 76000, 76000.5, 76104.6, 76104.7; Pen. Code §1465.7) may be imposed as probation conditions | These assessments are punitive, proportionate to base fine, mandatory in criminal context, and thus reasonably related to crime and may be probation conditions | These are collateral administrative costs and should be imposed as separate judgment orders, not probation conditions | Upheld: these penalty assessments are punitive and may be imposed as probation conditions under §1203.1(j) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lent, 15 Cal.3d 481 (test for validity of probation conditions)
- People v. Olguin, 45 Cal.4th 375 (probation conditions reasonably related to supervision; notification of pets upheld)
- People v. Bauer, 211 Cal.App.3d 937 (striking residence-approval condition where record lacked relation to crime)
- People v. Jones, 54 Cal.4th 350 (§654 prohibits multiple punishment for single physical act)
- People v. Le, 136 Cal.App.4th 925 (restitution fines are punishments subject to §654)
- People v. Tarris, 180 Cal.App.4th 612 (probation fines/conditions still subject to §654 limits)
- People v. Pacheco, 187 Cal.App.4th 1392 (court security fee is collateral and should be separately ordered)
- People v. Kim, 193 Cal.App.4th 836 (court facilities assessment is collateral and not a probation condition)
- People v. Batman, 159 Cal.App.4th 587 (DNA penalty assessment punitive)
- People v. High, 119 Cal.App.4th 1192 (courthouse construction penalty and state surcharge punitive)
- People v. Sharret, 191 Cal.App.4th 859 (criminal laboratory analysis fee punitive and subject to §654)