People v. Woods
191 Cal. App. 4th 269
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Defendant Woods appeals his cocaine and misdemeanor marijuana possession convictions.
- He was placed on Penal Code section 1210.1, subdivision (a) probation (Prop. 36).
- The trial court stayed three mandatory assessments/fees: Government Code 70373(a)(1) facilities assessment ($30), PC 1202.4(b)(1) restitution fine ($200 min), and PC 1465.8(a)(1) court security fee ($30).
- There is no statutory authority to stay these mandatory assessments/fees under the circumstances.
- On remittitur, the court must impose the facilities assessment and security fee; the restitution fine may be stayed only if compelling and extraordinary reasons exist.
- The opinion discusses that the stay of the restitution fine was unlawful and remand is required to determine whether compelling reasons exist to not impose the restitution fine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the facilities assessment be stayed during Prop. 36 probation? | People: mandatory and not stayable. | Woods: stay may be permissible under discretion. | No stay; facilities assessment must be imposed. |
| May the restitution fine be stayed during Prop. 36 probation? | People: restitution fine mandatory unless compelling, extraordinary reasons to not impose. | Woods: court may stay the fine in probation. | Stay improper; remittitur remand to determine compelling reasons whether to impose. |
| Must the court security fee be stayed during Prop. 36 probation? | People: fee is mandatory; no stay. | Woods: could be stayed. | No stay; fee must be imposed. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Hanson, 23 Cal.4th 355 (Cal. 2000) (restitution fine mandatory even absent a victim)
- People v. Knightbent, 186 Cal.App.4th 1105 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2010) (assessment under Govt. Code 70373(a)(1) required)
- People v. Crittle, 154 Cal.App.4th 368 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2007) (fees for each conviction unambiguously required)
- People v. Cattaneo, 217 Cal.App.3d 1577 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1990) (illegal sentence staying enhancements; remand for proper sentence)
- People v. Harvey, 233 Cal.App.3d 1206 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1991) (trial court had no authority to stay imposition of an enhancement)
- People v. Williams, 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 429 (Cal. 1998) 164? (Cal. 1998) (remand for proper sentencing where court abused discretion)
- People v. Castellanos, 175 Cal.App.4th 1524 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2009) (remand to permit proper exercise of sentencing authority)