People v. Cannavan CA2/6

DISCUSSION

I. Cannavan claims the $5,000 child abuse prevention restitution fine is unauthorized because the crime for which he was convicted is not an enumerated crime in section 294, subdivisions (a) or (b). The Attorney General properly concedes. Accordingly, we strike the section 294 fine as unauthorized. (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354.)

II.

Cannavan asserts that the trial court was unaware that it had discretion to impose a victim-witness assistance fine less than $10,000 or no fine at all. He points out that section 288, subdivision (e)(1) authorizes the court to impose a fine “not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000)” and enumerates the circumstances the court must consider in setting the fine. Cannavan relies upon the court’s statement that it was unable to “modify” the fine (“I don’t think I can modify [the section 288, subdivision (e)(1) fine]”). Section 288, subdivision (e)(1) authorizes the trial court to impose a fine not to exceed $10,000 considering “any relevant factors,” including the seriousness and gravity of the offense, the circumstances of its commission, and the victim’s economic losses, among other factors. The court may also impose no…