People v. Bush CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Riverside County · No. RIF2302245
- Trial judge
- Francisco Navarro
- Outcome
- reversed in part — Reversed and remanded with directions, and affirmed in all other respects.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Michele M. Castillo (author), William S. Dato, Buchanan
Analysis
The trial court imposed a $2,700 restitution fine by mistakenly applying a mandatory statutory multiplication formula instead of exercising its discretion to set the fine at the $300 statutory minimum. The Court of Appeal reversed the restitution fine and remanded for the trial court to exercise its informed discretion, while affirming the rest of the judgment.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Imposition of a $2,700 restitution fine under Penal Code section 1202.4“Because the record appears to show the court misunderstood its discretion, we remand so the trial court may exercise its informed discretion in imposing a restitution fine.” | unclear | error | agree with court agree with court |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Belmontes (1983) 34 Cal.3d 335 — Defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made by a court exercising its informed discretion.
- relied: People v. Marquez (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 797 — An erroneous understanding of its discretionary power is not a true exercise of informed discretion.
- relied: People v. Brown (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1213 — When the record shows the trial court proceeded with sentencing on the erroneous assumption it lacked discretion, remand is necessary to allow the court the opportunity to exercise its informed discretion.
- relied: People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847 — General authority for resolving matters by memorandum opinion.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly identifies that the trial court's statement that it imposed the 'bare minimum' while using a multiplier formula indicates a misunderstanding of its discretionary authority under Penal Code section 1202.4. The court applies the standard from People v. Brown and People v. Marquez to conclude that remand is required to allow the trial court to exercise informed discretion, which is the appropriate remedy when a sentencing court operates under a mistaken belief that it lacks discretion.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe Riverside County Superior Court sentenced Bush to three years in prison after a jury convicted him of attempted robbery, false imprisonment, and criminal threats with weapon enhancements, and imposed a $2,700 restitution fine under Penal Code section 1202.4 by applying the optional multiplier formula in subdivision (b)(2) while stating it had imposed the "bare minimum." On appeal the People conceded the court misunderstood its discretion, and the Court of Appeal accepted the concession by memorandum opinion, reversed the restitution fine, remanded for the trial court to exercise informed discretion in setting it, and affirmed the judgment in all other respects.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Imposition of a $2,700 restitution fine under Penal Code section 1202.4(b)(2) using the statutory multiplier formula, which the trial court believed was the mandatory minimum“But the court here mistakenly believed the multiplying formula was mandatory based on its comment that it “imposed the bare minimum.”” | abuse of discretion | error (discretion) | agree with court Section 1202.4(b)(2) is permissive ("may"); the $300 floor in (b)(1) is the only mandatory minimum. A court that treats the multiplier as compulsory has not exercised informed discretion, and under Belmontes, Marquez, and Brown remand is the proper remedy. The record evidence is thin (a single "bare minimum" remark), but with the People's concession and no contrary indication in the record, the inference of misunderstanding is reasonable and the limited remand is the appropriate, non-prejudicial remedy. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847 — Appellate courts may resolve appeals presenting no substantial issue by memorandum opinion.
- relied: People v. Belmontes (1983) 34 Cal.3d 335 — Defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made in the exercise of the court's informed discretion.
- relied: People v. Marquez (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 797 — A sentencing court's erroneous understanding of the scope of its discretionary power is not a true exercise of informed discretion.
- relied: People v. Brown (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1213 — When the record shows the trial court sentenced on the mistaken assumption it lacked discretion, remand is required to allow an informed exercise of discretion.
- missed: People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354 — Remand for resentencing is required when the court misunderstood its discretion unless the record clearly indicates the court would have reached the same result had it been aware of its discretion.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion correctly reads section 1202.4(b)(2) as permissive and applies the settled rule that a sentencing court's misapprehension of its discretion requires remand, a result reinforced by the People's concession. It is a brief memorandum opinion that does not cite the Supreme Court's controlling remand standard in Gutierrez or discuss whether the lone "bare minimum" remark could be read otherwise, but the result is defensible and the limited remand prejudices no one.
Opinion
Filed 2/25/25 P. v. Bush 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, D083769
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. RIF2302245)
DERRICK JASON BUSH,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Francisco Navarro, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions, and affirmed in all other respects. Reed Webb, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal and Randall D. Einhorn, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Derrick Jason Bush appeals the amount the trial court imposed as a restitution fine. The People concede error. We accept the concession, resolve this matter by memorandum opinion (see generally People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847), reverse and remand for the limited purpose of allowing the court to exercise its discretion in imposing the restitution fine, and affirm in all other respects. I. After a jury convicted Bush of attempted robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 664), false imprisonment (§ 236), criminal threats (§ 422), and found true three weapon enhancement allegations (§ 12022(b)(1)), the trial court sentenced Bush to prison for a term of three years. The court also imposed various fees and fines, including a $2,700 restitution fine under section 1202.4. To calculate the restitution fine, the court took the $300 statutory minimum and multiplied it by the number of years in prison and the number of felony convictions using a statutory formula. The court thought it “imposed the bare minimum” fines and fees. Nearly a year later, Bush’s appellate counsel sent a letter to the trial court asking it to reduce the restitution fine to $300, as required under Penal Code section 1237.2, but counsel did not receive a response. We deny Bush’s motion to augment the record to include this letter, but we judicially notice it under Evidence Code section 452(d). II. Bush claims the trial court imposed a higher restitution fine than intended by mistakenly using an optional multiplying formula. The People concede the court appears to have misunderstood its discretion and request we remand the matter for purposes of allowing the trial court to exercise its informed discretion in setting the restitution fine. We accept the People’s concession.
2 Defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made by a court exercising its informed discretion. (People v. Belmontes (1983) 34 Cal.3d 335, 348, fn. 8.) An erroneous understanding of its discretionary power is not a true exercise of informed discretion. (People v. Marquez (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 797, 803.) When the record shows the trial court proceeded with sentencing on the erroneous assumption it lacked discretion, remand is necessary to allow the court the opportunity to exercise its informed discretion. (People v. Brown (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1213, 1228.) Here, the trial court used a statutory formula to calculate the restitution fine, and in doing so increased the restitution fine above the $300 statutory minimum. Penal Code section 1202.4(b)(2) states a court may set the restitution fine as a product of the $300 minimum fine under section 1202.4(b)(1) multiplied by (1) the number of years of imprisonment sentenced and (2) the number of felony convictions sustained. The language of the statute does not require a court to increase the restitution fine above the $300 minimum. But the court here mistakenly believed the multiplying formula was mandatory based on its comment that it “imposed the bare minimum.” Because the record appears to show the court misunderstood its discretion, we remand so the trial court may exercise its informed discretion in imposing a restitution fine.
3 III. We reverse the $2,700 restitution fine and remand for the limited purpose of allowing the trial court to exercise its discretion in imposing this restitution fine. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment.
CASTILLO, J.
WE CONCUR:
DATO, Acting P. J.
BUCHANAN, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Brown A111490 · 2007-02-22
- People v. Garcia F034831 · 2002-04-17
- People v. Belmontes Crim. 22812 · 1983-08-18
- People v. Marquez Crim. 6167 · 1983-06-09