People v. Milkovits CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD283646
- Trial judge
- Desiree Bruce-Lyle
- Outcome
- modified — Affirmed as modified.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), O'Rourke, Michele M. Castillo
Analysis
The trial court denied the defendant's motion to delete unpaid criminal justice administration and restitution collection fees, finding it lacked jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment as modified, ordering the trial court to vacate the unpaid balances of those specific fees pursuant to recent statutory changes.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of defendant's motion to delete unpaid criminal justice administration fee and restitution fine collection fee“Because the court found it lacked jurisdiction to delete the fees, it denied the motion.” | de novo | error | agree with court The appellate court determined that the trial court erred in denying the motion because recent statutes (Gov. Code § 6111 and Pen. Code § 1465.9) explicitly render the unpaid balances of these specific fees unenforceable and mandate that the portion of the judgment imposing them be vacated. The court applied the plain language of these statutes to conclude the fees must be vacated. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Greeley (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 609 — Vacating unpaid balance of criminal justice administration fee
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the plain language of the newly enacted statutes (Gov. Code § 6111 and Pen. Code § 1465.9) which explicitly mandate the vacatur of the specific fees in question. The court also correctly cites People v. Greeley as supporting authority for the vacatur of the criminal justice administration fee.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe San Diego Superior Court, after finding Milkovits in violation of mandatory supervision, imposed the remaining 255-day term and lifted the stay on previously imposed fines and fees, including a $154 criminal justice administration fee (Gov. Code, § 29550.1) and a 10 percent restitution fine collection fee (former Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (l)), and later denied his Penal Code section 1237.2 motion to delete the unpaid balances for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal, accepting the People's concession, directed the trial court to vacate the unpaid balances of both fees under Government Code section 6111 and Penal Code section 1465.9 and otherwise affirmed the judgment.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Enforcement of the unpaid balance of the $154 criminal justice administration fee imposed under former Government Code section 29550.1 after that section was repealed effective July 1, 2021“Milkovits contends, and the People concede, that any portion of Milkovits’s criminal justice administration fee unpaid as of July 1, 2021, and any remaining restitution collection fee must be vacated. We agree.” | de novo | error (statutory interpretation) | agree with court Government Code section 6111, subdivision (a) expressly makes the unpaid balance of costs imposed under former section 29550.1 unenforceable and uncollectible as of July 1, 2021, and directs that the portion of the judgment imposing them be vacated. The court applied the plain statutory text and People v. Greeley, which vacated an identical fee balance; the People conceded. The reasoning is correct, though the disposition's phrase 'unpaid before July 1, 2021' is slightly imprecise wording for the balance remaining as of that date. |
Enforcement of the unpaid balance of the 10 percent restitution fine collection fee imposed under former Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (l)“Similarly, the restitution collection fee the court originally issued pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4 is no longer authorized.” | de novo | error (statutory interpretation) | agree with court Penal Code section 1465.9, subdivision (b) renders the balance of costs imposed under section 1202.4 unenforceable and uncollectible on and after January 1, 2022, and requires that portion of the judgment to be vacated. The court correctly read the statute's plain language, and the People conceded the point. |
Denial of Milkovits's Penal Code section 1237.2 motion to delete the fee balances on the ground the trial court lacked jurisdiction“Because the court found it lacked jurisdiction to delete the fees, it denied the motion.” | unclear | not reached | unsure The appellate court noted the denial only as establishing compliance with section 1237.2's prerequisite to appeal and did not analyze whether the jurisdictional ruling was correct. Because the appellate court itself ordered the vacatur the motion sought, the point was effectively mooted, but the opinion gives no reasoning on the jurisdictional question, so no assessment of the trial court's ruling is possible from the opinion alone. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Greeley (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 609 — Under Government Code section 6111, the unpaid balance of a criminal justice administration fee imposed under former Government Code section 29550.1 is unenforceable and uncollectible and must be vacated from the judgment.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion applies the plain text of Government Code section 6111 and Penal Code section 1465.9, supported by Greeley and the People's concession, to reach the result the statutes compel. It is brief and does not address the trial court's jurisdictional reasoning on the section 1237.2 motion, and the disposition's 'unpaid before' phrasing is imprecise, but the outcome is plainly correct.
Opinion
Filed 5/15/23 P. v. Milkovits 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, D080994
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD283646)
RYAN ANDREW MILKOVITS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Desiree Bruce-Lyle, Judge. Affirmed as modified.
Jill M. Kent, 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, Christopher Beesley and Daniel Rogers, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Ryan Andrew Milkovits appeals, contending that any unpaid portion of the criminal justice administration fee and restitution fine collection fee imposed at sentencing should be vacated. As the People concede, we agree these fees must be vacated, order the judgment modified, and otherwise affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Milkovits pled guilty in December 2019 to one count of unlawfully selling or furnishing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)) and possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code § 11350). At sentencing, the trial court placed Milkovits on three years of formal probation and imposed various fines and fees, including a $154 criminal justice administration fee under Government Code section 29550.1 and a 10 percent restitution fine collection fee under former Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (l). After Milkovits’s probation was revoked on July 1, 2021, the court imposed one-year custody and two-years supervision. At a July 28, 2022 contested revocation hearing, the court found Milkovits in violation of the terms of his mandatory supervision, imposed the remaining unserved term of 255 days, and lifted the stay on the previously imposed fines and fees.
Milkovits appealed.1 DISCUSSION Milkovits contends, and the People concede, that any portion of Milkovits’s criminal justice administration fee unpaid as of July 1, 2021, and any remaining restitution collection fee must be vacated. We agree.
1 As required by Penal Code section 1237.2, Milkovits moved the trial court to delete the balance due on the criminal justice administration and restitution collection fees. (See Pen. Code, § 1237.2 [appeal based on erroneous fees may not be taken until defendant makes a motion in writing for correction in the trial court].) Because the court found it lacked jurisdiction to delete the fees, it denied the motion. 2 As of July 1, 2021, the statutory provision pursuant to which the court previously ordered Milkovits to pay the criminal justice administration fee was repealed (see former Gov. Code, § 29550.1), and Government Code section 6111 became effective. That statute provides “the unpaid balance of any court-imposed costs pursuant to . . . Section[] 29550.1 . . . as th[at] section[] read[s] on June 30, 2021, is unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those costs shall be vacated.” (Gov. Code, § 6111, subd. (a).) Similarly, the restitution collection fee the court originally issued pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4 is no longer authorized. Penal Code section 1465.9, subdivision (b) struck the fee, rendering the balance “on and after January 1, 2022” of any court-imposed costs pursuant to section 1202.4 “unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those costs shall be vacated.” The plain language of these recently enacted statutes dictates that any remaining unpaid balance of the criminal justice administration fee and restitution collection fee is now unenforceable, uncollectible, and the portion of the judgment imposing such costs must be vacated. (Gov. Code, § 6111, subd. (a); Pen. Code, § 1465.9, subd. (b); People v. Greeley (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 609, 625–627 [vacating unpaid balance of criminal justice administration fee].) DISPOSITION The trial court is directed to vacate the portion of the judgment imposing any balance of the $154 criminal justice administration fee that was unpaid before July 1, 2021, and any balance of the 10 percent restitution 3 collection fee that was unpaid before January 1, 2022, and to amend the judgment accordingly. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
O'ROURKE, J.
CASTILLO, J.