People v. Hong
Decision Date | 15 June 1998 |
Docket Number | No. B113309,B113309 |
Citation | 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 23,64 Cal.App.4th 1071 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | , 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4603, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6525 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. James HONG, Defendant and Appellant. |
Timothy C. Cronin, San Francisco, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, George Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Carol Wendelin Pollack, Senior Assistant Attorney General, John R. Gorey, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Lawrence M. Daniels, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant, James Hong, appeals after he was convicted of multiple offenses: attempted murder (Pen.Code, §§ 187, 664 )1; assault with a deadly weapon as a felony (§ 245, subd. (a)); two counts of felony corporal injury to a spouse or cohabitant; (§ 273.5, subd. (a)); making a terrorist threat (§ 422); two counts of misdemeanor assault (§ 240); misdemeanor vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a)); misdemeanor assault by means of force likely to inflict great bodily injury with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)); and a single count of misdemeanor corporal injury to a spouse. (§ 273.5, subd. (a).) Additionally, three allegations pursuant section 12022.7, subdivision (d) were found to be true.
In the published portion of the opinion, we address the duty of the superior court clerk to include a restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (b) and other orders in the abstract of judgment. We further address the requirement that a fine also be imposed pursuant to section 1202.45 when the defendant is fined in compliance with section 1202.4.
[[/]]
In the published portion of this opinion we address two issues. The first issue involves the abstract of judgment. The second question involves an additional restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.45. To begin with, we address the issue of whether a restitution fine imposed pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (b) 2 must be reflected on the abstract of judgment along with orders for "deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and other genetic typing analysis" pursuant to section 290.2. 3 The easier question with a clearer answer is whether the section 1202.4, subdivision (b) fine must be set forth on the abstract of judgment. This is a matter of some consequence because abstracts of judgment issued by the County Clerk of Los Angeles County routinely omit any reference to fines. The Attorney General is correct that although the reporter's transcript and the minute order of the probation and sentencing hearing reflect the trial judge imposed the section 1202.4, subdivision (b) restitution fine, the abstract of judgment does not. The abstract of judgment is a form promulgated by the Judicial Council under the authority of section 1213.5 which will be discussed in some detail later in this opinion. The abstract of judgment in this case is Judicial Council Form DSL 290 and it is attached as an appendix to this opinion. As can be noted, paragraph 5 is labeled "OTHER ORDERS" and is followed by a three-eighths inch by three-inch space where a fine can be listed. Under the provided space, the following words appear, "Use additional sheets of plain paper if necessary." 4
In support of the contention the abstract of judgment must include the section 1202.4, subdivision (b) restitution fine, the Attorney General relies upon the following language in People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471, 121 Cal.Rptr. 473, 535 P.2d 337: Appellate courts routinely grant requests on appeal of the Attorney General to correct errors in the abstract of judgment. (E.g. People v. Goodwin (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1084, 1094, fn. 8, 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 576 [ ]; People v. Neufer (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 244, 254, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 386 [ ]; People v. Ngaue (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 896, 899, fn. 3, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 521 [ ].)
The abstract of judgment in a criminal case is a document described in Penal Code section 1213 which states: As noted previously, the actual form used as the abstract of judgment in this case was prepared by the Judicial Council as required by Penal Code section 1213.5 which states, "The abstract of judgment provided for in Section 1213 shall be prescribed by the Judicial Council." The delivery of the abstract of judgment or a certified copy of the minute order to the sheriff commences the execution of judgment. (People v. Howard (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1081, 1089, 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 870, 946 P.2d 828; People v. Karaman (1992) 4 Cal.4th 335, 344-345, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 801, 842 P.2d 100.) Abstracts of judgment in matters imposing imprisonment in state prison are orders sending the defendant to prison and imposing the duty upon the warden to carry out the judgment. (In re Black (1967) 66 Cal.2d 881, 889-890, 59 Cal.Rptr. 429, 428 P.2d 293; People v. Crockett (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 258, 266, 271 Cal.Rptr. 500.)
The question presented by the Attorney General's argument requires a determination as to whether a fine is part of a judgment. Beginning in 1851, fines have been recognized by the Legislature as an element of the judgment. The first comprehensive statutory framework adopted by the Legislature in terms of criminal procedure was enacted in 1851 with the adoption of "AN ACT to regulate Proceedings in Criminal Cases." (See Kleps, The Revision and Codification of California Statutes 1849-1953 (1954) 42 Cal. Law Rev. 766, 767 & fn. 6; e.g. People v. Chadd (1981) 28 Cal.3d 739, 749, 170 Cal.Rptr. 798, 621 P.2d 837.) The 1851 statutory provisions indicated that a judgment included a fine. Section 464 of the 1851 act referred to a judgment "for a fine alone." (Stats. 1851, ch. 464, § 464, p. 263.) Section 465 of the 1851 act stated: "If the judgment be imprisonment or a fine and imprisonment until it be satisfied, ..." (Stats. 1851, ch. 464, § 465, p. 263.) Sections 1215 and 1216 of the Penal Code, as initially adopted in 1872, likewise used the term "fine" in the context of being part of a judgment. (1 Pen.Code, §§ 1215-1216 (1st ed. 1872, Haymond, Burch & McKune, commrs.) p. 425.) The present version of the Penal and other codes utilize the term "fine" in the context of a judgment in a criminal case. (E.g. Code Civ. Proc, § 704.090, subd. (b) []; § 1165 []; § 1205 []; § 1214, subd. (a) []; § 1215 []; § 1272, subd. 1 []; § 1273 []; § 1445 []; § 4017.5 []; § 4019 [...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Jones
...section 1202.4, subdivision (b) fine, to be suspended unless the defendant's parole is revoked. We agree (People v. Hong (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1071, 1084-1085, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 23), and therefore order that the judgment is to be so modified. The abstract of judgment must also be corrected to ......
-
People v. Garcia
...1040 [appellate court may correct clerical errors on its own motion or upon application of the parties]; People v. Hong (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1071, 1075-1081, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 23 [reporter's transcript controls]; see also People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466. 471, 121 Cal.Rptr. 473, 535 P.2d 2......
-
People v. Travis
...automatic upon conviction of a felony. (People v. Brewer (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1298, 1302, 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 293; People v. Hong (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1071, 1083, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 23.) The persons specified in the act—that is, anyone convicted of any felony offense—"shall" provide samples, "and......
-
People v. Delgado
...summarize the judgment." (Mitchell, supra, at p. 186, 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 303, 26 P.3d 1040, citing with approval People v. Hong (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1071, 1080, 76 Cal. Rptr.2d 23.) When prepared by the court clerk, at or near the time of judgment, as part of his or her official duty, it is c......