People v. Harville CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D068707 · 2016-03-14 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD259522, SCD261948
Trial judge: Daniel F. Link
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed and remanded for further proceedings.
Area: criminal
Panel: McINTYRE (author), Alex C. McDonald, Judith L. Haller

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T05:55Z · confidence high

The trial court sentenced the defendant to four years and eight months in local custody but failed to impose or record mandatory fines and fees. The appellate court affirmed the judgment but remanded the case to the trial court to correct the unauthorized sentence by imposing the required fines and fees.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Failure to impose mandatory fines and fees at sentencing “Failure to impose mandatory fees, fines, penalties, and assessments constitutes an unauthorized sentence, which may be corrected by an appellate court even in the absence of an objection or argument below.”	de novo	error	agree with court The court correctly identified that the omission of mandatory fines and fees renders the sentence unauthorized and subject to correction on appeal without a specific objection from the defendant.
Denial of restitution “This statement satisfied its duty under subdivision (b) of section 1202.4 to "impose a separate and additional restitution fine, unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so and states those reasons on the record."”	abuse of discretion	not reached	agree with court The court noted the trial court's statement regarding the victim's lack of request satisfied the statutory duty, implying no error was found in this specific aspect of the sentencing.

Authorities

relied: People v. Turner (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1409 — Failure to impose mandatory fees, fines, penalties, and assessments constitutes an unauthorized sentence, which may be corrected by an appellate court even in the absence of an objection or argument below.
relied: People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192 — The trial court must provide a detailed recitation of all the fees, fines and penalties on the record, including their amounts and statutory bases.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Appointed appellate counsel must review the record for error when presenting no argument for reversal.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed appellate counsel must review the record for error when presenting no argument for reversal.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework for appointed counsel and accurately cites Turner and High to support the remand for correcting the unauthorized sentence regarding fines and fees. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the specific error identified in the record.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:31Z · confidence low

After Harville's probation in a 2014 vehicle-theft case was revoked following a jury conviction for receiving a stolen vehicle in a second case, the trial court denied two Marsden motions and a self-representation request, lifted the stay on the four-year suspended term, added a consecutive eight months, declined restitution because the victim did not request it, and did not address fines or fees. On a Wende appeal the Court of Appeal found no arguable issues as to the Marsden and self-representation rulings, held the omission of mandatory fines and fees was an unauthorized sentence, and affirmed while remanding for imposition of all mandatory fees, fines, and assessments and correction of the abstract of judgment.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of Harville's two Marsden motions for substitute appointed counsel “The trial court conducted a Marsden hearing and denied the motion.”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion is a Wende review; it lists the Marsden denials as possible but not arguable issues and states no facts about what Harville complained of or how the court inquired. Marsden denials are reviewed for abuse of discretion, but the opinion recites no standard and no record detail, so there is no basis to second-guess the conclusion or to confirm it.
Denial of Harville's request to represent himself “Harville then sought to represent himself, but the trial court denied the request.”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion gives no information about the timing of the request, whether it was equivocal, or the trial court's stated grounds, all of which drive a Faretta analysis. Without those facts the independent-review conclusion cannot be evaluated beyond noting that appointed counsel and the court both found nothing arguable.
Failure at the August 17, 2015 sentencing to impose and recite mandatory fines, fees, penalties, and assessments “The trial court, however, failed to mention other mandatory fines and fees.”	unclear	error (procedure)	agree with court Mandatory assessments such as the court operations and conviction assessments involve no sentencing discretion, so their omission is an unauthorized sentence correctable on appeal without an objection below, as Turner and High hold. Remand for a detailed recitation of each fee, its amount, and statutory basis is the standard remedy and is consistent with the authority cited.
Declining to order restitution because the victim did not request it, treated by the appellate court as satisfying the section 1202.4, subdivision (b) restitution-fine requirement “At the August 17, 2015 sentencing hearing the trial court declined to order restitution because the victim did not ask for restitution. This statement satisfied its duty under subdivision (b) of section 1202.4”	unclear	correct (statutory interpretation)	disagree with court The opinion conflates victim restitution under section 1202.4, subdivision (f) with the restitution fine under subdivision (b), which is payable to the Restitution Fund and is owed regardless of whether a victim seeks restitution; a victim's silence is not a 'compelling and extraordinary reason' for omitting the fine. The outcome may nonetheless be defensible because under People v. Tillman the People forfeit an omitted restitution fine by failing to object, but the court's stated reasoning misreads the statute and could confuse the trial court on remand, which must also respect that the fine already imposed in case one survives revocation under People v. Chambers.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Appellate court must independently review the record when appointed counsel files a brief raising no arguable issues.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds no meritorious issues may file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — A defendant seeking substitute appointed counsel must be given an opportunity to state the reasons for the request.
relied: People v. Turner (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1409 — Failure to impose mandatory fees, fines, penalties, and assessments is an unauthorized sentence that an appellate court may correct absent objection below.
relied: People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192 — The trial court must give a detailed recitation on the record of all fees, fines, and penalties, with amounts and statutory bases, and the abstract must reflect them.
missed: People v. Tillman (2000) 22 Cal.4th 300 — A trial court's failure to impose a section 1202.4 restitution fine or state reasons for omitting it is a discretionary sentencing choice that the People forfeit by not objecting, and an appellate court may not add the fine on appeal.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The Wende review and the remand to impose mandatory fees under Turner and High are proper and reach a defensible result. The opinion, however, misreads section 1202.4 by treating the trial court's refusal of victim restitution as satisfying the separate restitution-fine requirement, and it does not address Tillman or Chambers, both of which bear on what the trial court may do with restitution fines on remand given the fines already ordered in case one.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 3/14/16 P. v. Harville 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, D068707

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. SCD259522, v. SCD261948)

WILBERT DOMINIC HARVILLE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Daniel F.

Link, Judge. Affirmed and remanded for further proceedings.

Andrea S. Bitar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General and Allison V. Hawley, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In November 2014, Wilbert Dominic Harville was charged with two felony counts for vehicle theft and obtaining a stolen vehicle, and two misdemeanor counts for possessing methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia (SCD259522, the first case).

Harville pleaded guilty to all counts. The trial court later sentenced Harville to the upper term of three years for the vehicle theft charge, suspended the sentence on the condition that Harville serve 365 days in custody with credit of 97 actual and 96 days of Penal Code section 4019 credit, ordered the payment of certain fines and fees, but stayed the order pending successful completion of probation. (Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.) The court imposed the same sentence for the obtaining stolen property count, but stayed the sentence under section 654. As to the misdemeanor counts, the court suspended imposition of sentence for three years on the same terms and conditions as the vehicle theft count and added a year to the suspended sentence for a prison prior, for a total suspended prison term of four years.

In April 2015, Harville was released from local custody and placed on probation.

The following month, he was arrested and charged with felony vehicle theft and obtaining stolen vehicle (SCD261948, the second case). In July 2015, Harville moved for new counsel under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden). The trial court conducted a Marsden hearing and denied the motion. Harville then sought to represent himself, but the trial court denied the request. Harville made a second Marsden motion later that month, which the trial court denied.

A jury found Harville guilty of obtaining stolen property. The trial court dismissed the vehicle theft charge after the jury returned the verdict form unsigned. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court lifted the stay on the four-year suspended sentence from case one and sentenced Harville to an additional eight months, consecutive, on case two, for a total of four years eight months, to be served locally. The trial court stated it would not order restitution because the victim did not ask for restitution. The trial court 2 calculated custody credits, but did not address any fines or fees. Harville timely appealed.

We requested a supplemental letter brief from counsel to address whether the trial court erred when it failed to address fines and fees at the August 17, 2015 sentencing hearing and include fines and fees in the abstract of judgment. Both counsel responded to our request for supplemental briefs.

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. He presented no argument for reversal, but asked this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). Counsel listed as possible but not arguable issues, whether the trial court should have granted the Marsden motions or Harville's motion for self-representation. Counsel advised Harville of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. We also granted Harville permission to file a brief on his own behalf. We received no communication from Harville.

At the August 17, 2015 sentencing hearing the trial court declined to order restitution because the victim did not ask for restitution. This statement satisfied its duty under subdivision (b) of section 1202.4 to "impose a separate and additional restitution fine, unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so and states those reasons on the record." The trial court, however, failed to mention other mandatory fines and fees. Failure to impose mandatory fees, fines, penalties, and assessments 3 constitutes an unauthorized sentence, which may be corrected by an appellate court even in the absence of an objection or argument below. (People v. Turner (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1413-1415.) Accordingly, we must remand the matter to the trial court to rectify its failure to provide a "detailed recitation of all the fees, fines and penalties on the record," including their amounts and statutory bases. (People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200.)

We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no other reasonably arguable issues. Competent counsel has represented Harville on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The matter is remanded to the trial court for determination and imposition of all appropriate mandatory fees, fines, and assessments and correction of the abstract of judgment. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to forward a certified copy of the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

McINTYRE, J. WE CONCUR:

HALLER, Acting P. J.

McDONALD, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. High C044943 · 2004-06-28
People v. Turner C037315 · 2002-03-22
People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12
People v. Marsden Crim. 14119 · 1970-02-26