Hannah

People v. Hannah

Bad Law
1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 636·73 Cal. App. 4th 270·86 Cal. Rptr. 2d 395·99 Daily Journal DAR 6791·99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5347
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 1, 1999B126607California1,509 words

Opinion

Opinion

Turner, J.

I. Introduction

Defendant, Carolyn Jean Hannah, appeals from her suspended state prison sentence and grant of probation following her conviction for felony petty theft (Pen. Code, § 484) and the determination that she had previously served two prison sentences. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).) Defendant argues that the prosecutor improperly exercised a peremptory challenge. The Attorney General argues that the trial court should have imposed a fine pursuant to section 1202.45. In the published portion of this opinion, we address the issue of whether a section 1202.45 fine must be imposed when a defendant is placed on probation.

II. Discussion

A. Wheeler Motion

B. Section 1202.45 Fine

The trial court imposed a $200 restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(1). The Attorney General requests that this court modify the judgment to include a fine pursuant to section 1202.45, which provides: “In every case where a person is convicted of a crime and whose sentence includes a period of parole, the court shall at the time of imposing the restitution fine pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 1202.4, assess an additional restitution fine in the same amount as that…

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.