People v. Murillo CA3

DISCUSSION

Given the issue presented, it is unnecessary to recite the underlying facts pertaining to defendant’s offenses. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court indicated that it read and considered the probation department’s presentence investigation report which recommended, among other things, that defendant pay a fine in the amount of $600 pursuant to section 243.4. The trial court imposed the fine as recommended. There was no objection. Section 243.4 pertains to sexual battery. Defendant contends the $600 fine must be vacated because he was neither charged with, nor convicted of, sexual battery. Citing People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331 (Scott), he argues his contention is reviewable despite his failure to object at trial because the fine “could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case” and thus constituted an unauthorized sentence. (Id. at p. 354.) The People agree that “a fine pursuant to section 243.4 was inapplicable in this case.” However, relying on the language quoted above from Scott, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 354, the People argue that the $600 fine was authorized because it could have been imposed under section 288, subdivision (e).…