People v. Brown CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD253605
- Trial judge
- Laura H. Parsky
- Outcome
- modified — Affirmed as modified with directions.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Alex C. McDonald, McINTYRE
Analysis
The trial court imposed a $500 sex offender fine pursuant to Penal Code section 290.3 in addition to a five-year prison sentence for failing to register as a sex offender and transient. On appeal, the Court of Appeal modified the judgment to strike the fine, agreeing with the parties that the statute does not authorize such a fine for the specific technical violations of which the defendant was convicted.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Imposition of a $500 sex offender fine pursuant to Penal Code section 290.3“The $500 sex offender fine is required by section 290.3, in cases where the defendant has been convicted of new offenses specified in subdivision (c) of section 290.” | de novo | error (statutory interpretation) | agree with court The appellate court correctly identified that Penal Code section 290.3 mandates a fine only for convictions of offenses listed in section 290, subdivision (c). Since the defendant was convicted of technical registration violations under sections 290.013 and 290.011, which are not listed in section 290, subdivision (c), the trial court erred in imposing the fine. The court's application of the statutory text to the specific charges is legally sound and supported by the plain language of the statute. |
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the plain language of Penal Code section 290.3 to the specific statutory charges. The court accurately notes that the mandatory fine applies only to offenses listed in section 290, subdivision (c), which excludes the technical registration violations of which the defendant was convicted.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court, after a jury convicted Brown of failing to register as a sex offender (Pen. Code, § 290.013) and failing to register as a transient (§ 290.011), sentenced him to five years and imposed a $500 sex offender fine under section 290.3. On appeal, with the People's concession, the Court of Appeal held the fine was unauthorized because the registration offenses are not listed in section 290, subdivision (c), struck the fine, and otherwise affirmed with directions to amend the abstract of judgment.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Imposition of a $500 sex offender fine under Penal Code section 290.3 following convictions for failure to register under sections 290.013 and 290.011“Simply put, the fine in section 290.3 does not apply in this case and it must be stricken.” | de novo | error (statutory interpretation) | agree with court Section 290.3, subdivision (a) by its terms applies only to persons convicted of an offense specified in section 290, subdivision (c). Failure-to-register offenses under sections 290.013 and 290.011 are not among the enumerated offenses, so the fine had no statutory basis and was an unauthorized sentence correctable on appeal. The court did not expressly state a standard of review, but the question is purely one of statutory interpretation, and the court's reading of the statute is correct and consistent with the People's concession. |
The appellate opinion: sound — The court correctly read the plain text of section 290.3, subdivision (a), which limits the fine to convictions for offenses listed in section 290, subdivision (c), and the registration offenses at issue are not listed there. The opinion cites no case law, but none was needed given the clear statutory text and the People's concession; the disposition striking the fine and directing amendment of the abstract is the proper remedy.
Opinion
Filed 4/9/15 P. v. Brown 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, D066269
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD253605)
DAVID JOSEPH BROWN,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Laura H.
Parsky, Judge. Affirmed as modified with directions.
Paul J. Katz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal and Tami Falkenstein Hennick, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. A jury convicted David Joseph Brown of failing to register as a sex offender (Pen.
Code,1 § 290.013) in count 1. In count 2 he was convicted of failing to register as a transient (§ 290.011). The court found true one prison prior (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and one strike prior (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). Brown was sentenced to a total term of five years in prison. In addition the court imposed a $500 sex offender fine pursuant to section 290.3.
Brown appeals challenging only the sex offender fine. He contends the fine was not authorized for the offense for which he was convicted. The People correctly concede the fine was not authorized and that we should strike it. We agree with the parties that the $500 fine was improperly imposed and we will modify the judgment by striking the fine.2
DISCUSSION
The $500 sex offender fine is required by section 290.3, in cases where the defendant has been convicted of new offenses specified in subdivision (c) of section 290.
Section 290.3, subdivision (a) provides in part:
"(a) Every person who is convicted of any offense specified in subdivision (c) of section 290 shall, in addition to any imprisonment or fine, or both, imposed for commission of the underlying offense, be punished by a fine of three hundred dollars ($300) upon the first conviction or a fine of five hundred dollars ($500) upon the second and each subsequent conviction, unless the court determines that the defendant does not have the ability to pay the fine."
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
2 Since the issue in this case is very limited we will omit the traditional statement of facts. 2 As the parties have pointed out the offenses for which Brown was convicted are technical violations, not listed in section 290, subdivision (c). Simply put, the fine in section 290.3 does not apply in this case and it must be stricken.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified to strike the $500 fine imposed pursuant to section 290.3. The trial court is directed to amend the abstract of judgment accordingly and forward the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
McDONALD, J.
McINTYRE, J.