BREAZELL

People v. BREAZELL

Bad Law
104 Cal. App. 4th 298·127 Cal. Rptr. 2d 901·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 5127·2002 Daily Journal DAR 14065·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11970
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 12, 2002F038052California2,122 words

Opinion

Opinion

Cornell, J.

Rene Breazell pled guilty after her motion to suppress was denied. On appeal, Breazell claims that the evidence against her should have been suppressed. Breazell also claims that the trial court erroneously assessed a fine pursuant to Penal Code section 672 because a fine was imposed pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11372 as well. Breazell contends that a fine pursuant to section 672 can be imposed only if no other statutory fine is imposed for the criminal conduct.

In the unpublished portion of this opinion, we conclude that the trial court committed no error in denying Breazell’s motion to suppress and affirm the judgment. In the published portion of this opinion, we agree that the fine imposed pursuant to section 672 was erroneous, and it constitutes an unauthorized sentence. Accordingly, we order that fine stricken.

Factual and Procedural Summary

While riding in an unmarked police van, Special Agent John Gaines received a telephone call from his office informing him that an anonymous informant called and stated that Rene and “Tasha” were manufacturing cocaine base at Breazell’s residence in the presence of children. Gaines and his partner, Investigator…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.