People v. Pena CA5

DISCUSSION

I. Facts

The probation report recommended that defendant be required to pay various fines and fees, including restitution fines pursuant to Penal Code sections 1202.4, subdivision (b) and 1202.45, and a drug program fee pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11372.7 (with a penalty assessment). At sentencing, the trial court stated it had read and considered the probation report and recommendations. The court sentenced defendant to two years in prison, then asked if there was “any objection to the fines and fees as recommended.” Defense counsel said there was not. Without further describing the fines and fees, the court stated: “They’ll be imposed as recommended.” The abstract of judgment includes matching $280 restitution fines pursuant to Penal Code sections 1202.4, subdivision (b) and 1202.45, and a $390 drug program fee pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11372.7, subdivision (a). The clerk’s minute order reflects the imposition of these fines and fee.

II. Analysis

The abstract of judgment must reflect the court’s oral pronouncement of judgment. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185-186.) “The clerk cannot supplement the judgment the…