People v. Sandil CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCE338281
- Trial judge
- Ronald F. Frazier
- Outcome
- modified — Affirmed as modified.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Patricia D. Benke (author), Judith L. Haller, Judith D. McConnell
Analysis
The trial court granted probation with specific conditions and imposed a $39 fine under Penal Code section 1202.5. On appeal, the court modified the judgment to strike the erroneously retained probation conditions and the unauthorized fine, affirming the rest of the judgment.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Retention of stricken probation conditions 12(f), 12(g), and 17 on the formal probation order“The People agree with defendant's argument that the record must be corrected to reflect the striking of condition Nos. 12(f), 12 (g), and 17. We agree as well.” | unclear | error | agree with court The trial court struck these conditions but failed to update the written order, creating a clerical inconsistency. The appellate court correctly identified that the record must reflect the actual ruling to avoid ambiguity in the probation terms. |
Imposition of a $39 fine under Penal Code section 1202.5“We have examined Penal Code section 1202.5 and agree it does not include the offenses for which defendant was convicted; therefore, the fine is unauthorized.” | de novo | error | agree with court The trial court imposed a fine under a statute that does not apply to the specific offenses of use of counterfeit credit cards and possession of counterfeit items. The appellate court correctly determined the fine was unauthorized because the statutory basis did not cover the convictions. |
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it relies on the parties' stipulations and a straightforward statutory interpretation. It correctly identifies that the written order must match the oral ruling and that the fine lacked statutory authority.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court placed Sandil on three years' formal probation with 270 days in custody after a jury convicted him of using counterfeit credit cards (Pen. Code, § 484f, subd. (a)) and possessing counterfeit items (Pen. Code, § 475, subd. (a)), and imposed a $39 fine under Penal Code section 1202.5, while the written probation order left checked three conditions the court had orally stricken. The Court of Appeal, with the People's concession, modified the judgment to strike probation condition Nos. 12(f), 12(g), and 17 and the $39 fine, and otherwise affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Probation conditions 12(f), 12(g), and 17, which the trial court orally struck, remained checked on the order granting formal probation; the appellate court ordered the record corrected to reflect that they were stricken.“Despite the fact these conditions were stricken, they remained checked on the order granting formal probation form.” | unclear | error (procedure) | agree with court The oral pronouncement controls over an inconsistent written order, and a clerical discrepancy in the probation form is correctable on appeal. Both parties agreed the form did not reflect the court's actual ruling, and the opinion's correction is the standard remedy, though no authority is cited. |
Imposition of a $39 fine under Penal Code section 1202.5; the appellate court held the fine unauthorized because section 1202.5 does not apply to convictions under sections 484f and 475.“We have examined Penal Code section 1202.5 and agree it does not include the offenses for which defendant was convicted; therefore, the fine is unauthorized.” | unclear | error (statutory interpretation) | agree with court Section 1202.5 authorizes a $10 fine only for convictions of the offenses it enumerates (e.g., §§ 211, 215, 459, 470, 484, 487, 488, 594); sections 484f and 475 are not among them, so the fine (and its attached penalty assessments) lacked statutory basis and was an unauthorized sentence correctable on appeal regardless of objection below. |
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion reaches the correct result on both conceded issues: the written probation order must conform to the court's oral striking of the conditions, and section 1202.5 by its terms does not reach the offenses of conviction. It cites no authority at all, however, and does not state the standard of review or explain why the unauthorized fine is reviewable despite any lack of objection, which leaves the analysis thin even if defensible.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
Filed 3/10/16 P. v. Sandil 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, D068355
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE338281)
CHARLES SANDIL,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Ronald F.
Frazier, Judge. Affirmed as modified.
Jason L. Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Barry Carlton and Heidi Salerno, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. BACKGROUND On November 12, 2013, defendant and appellant Charles Sandil requested an $800 cash advance at the Barona Casino. He was using a counterfeit credit card. When arrested at the casino, it was discovered that he had four additional counterfeit cards in his wallet. On September 11, 2014, a jury found defendant guilty of use of counterfeit credit cards (Pen. Code, § 484f, subd. (a)) and possession of counterfeit items (Pen. Code, § 475, subd. (a)). On June 5, 2015, the trial court granted defendant three years' probation, with commitment to the custody of the sheriff for 270 days, and imposed a $39 fine under Penal Code section 1202.5.
ANALYSIS
A.
The trial court struck several conditions from the order granting formal probation.
Among these were condition Nos. 12(f), 12(g), and 17. Despite the fact these conditions were stricken, they remained checked on the order granting formal probation form. The minute order noted these conditions were to "remain as agreed by counsel." The People agree with defendant's argument that the record must be corrected to reflect the striking of condition Nos. 12(f), 12 (g), and 17. We agree as well.
B.
As part of defendant's sentence, he was ordered to pay a $39 fine pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.5. Defendant argues this fine must be stricken because it does not apply to the crimes for which he was convicted. The People agree. We have examined 2 Penal Code section 1202.5 and agree it does not include the offenses for which defendant was convicted; therefore, the fine is unauthorized.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is ordered modified to strike condition Nos. 12(f), 12(g), and 17 of probation, as well as the $39 fine. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
BENKE, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
HALLER, J.