People v. Kenville CA6

DISCUSSION

1. Drug Program Fee Defendant argues reversal is necessary, because the court failed to state the exact amount imposed for the drug program fee and did not specify the statutory bases for the fee and its applicable penalty assessments. We agree.

1 The circumstances of defendant’s offense are not relevant to the issues raised on appeal. We therefore dispense with a recitation of the facts and provide only a brief summary of the relevant procedural history. 2 Earlier, defendant filed a motion pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. A hearing was held on December 19, 2012, and the motion was denied.

2 Failure to State Base Amount of Drug Program Fee During the sentencing hearing, the trial court did not specify the amount of the drug program fee to be imposed. The court merely stated that it was ordering defendant to pay a “drug program fee plus a $450.00, penalty assessment.”3 However, the sentencing minute order reflects a $150 drug program fee plus an additional $450 in penalty assessments. Defendant argues the $150 drug program fee was entered in error. It is well settled that when there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of a sentence and…