People v. Buchan CA4/1

DISCUSSION

In his opening brief, Buchan initially argued that all fines and fees should be stricken because their imposition was unauthorized. Buchan asserted that the rendition of judgment is an oral pronouncement (People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471), a judgment includes any fine (People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 387), and the oral pronouncement of judgment controls in the event of a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and the minute order (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185–186). Buchan further argued that the clerk’s addition of fines and fees to the minute order that were not orally pronounced renders the judgment unauthorized and that Zackery supports his request that we strike those fines and fees. In response, the People did not dispute these underlying principles, but instead contended that the trial court’s failure to impose mandatory assessments rendered the judgment unauthorized. The People asked us to remand, so that the trial court may impose any mandatory assessments and specify the basis for any fines and fees beyond those mandated by statute. The People identified only two mandatory assessments the court failed to impose: a…