Robertson

People v. Robertson

Good Law
174 Cal. App. 4th 206·2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 821·94 Cal. Rptr. 3d 179
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 26, 2009C058306California1,613 words

Opinion

Opinion

Davis, J.

We publish this decision to correct a misunderstanding by the parties, not the trial court, concerning this court’s decision in People v. Eddards (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 712 [ 75 Cal.Rptr.3d 924 ] (Eddards), which held that when, as a condition of probation, a defendant is ordered to pay “restitution to the victim or the Restitution Fund” (Pen. Code, § 1203.1, subd. (b)), an administrative fee of up to 10 percent of the amount may be imposed to cover a county’s cost of collecting “restitution to be made to the victim” (Pen. Code, § 1203.1, subd. (/)) but not when the payment is to be made to the Restitution Fund. (Eddards, supra, 162 Cal.App.4th at pp. 716-717.)

As we will explain, the holding in Eddards does not preclude a trial court from imposing a 10 percent administrative fee to cover a county’s cost of collecting a “restitution fine” (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (/)) ordered pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (a)(3)(A).

Here, defendant Steven Mark Robertson pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378), admitted an allegation that he was personally armed with a firearm during the commission of the offense…

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.