California Supreme And Appellate Court
Case Summaries
Criminal Law-Sentencing

CRIMINAL LAW-SENTENCING
Criminal Law Sentencing Case Summaries

■ People v. Robertson, No. C058306

We publish this decision to correct a misunderstanding by the parties, not the trial court, concerning this court’s decision in People v. Eddards (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 712 (Eddards), which held that when, as a condition of probation, a defendant is ordered to pay “restitution to the victim or the Restitution Fund” (Pen. Code, § 1203.1, subd. (b)), an administrative fee of up to 10 percent of the amount may be imposed to cover a county’s cost of collecting “restitution to be made to the victim” (Pen. Code, § 1203.1, subd. (l)) but not when the payment is to be made to the Restitution Fund.  (Eddards, supra, 162 Cal.App.4th at pp. 716-717.) 

     As we will explain, the holding in Eddards does not preclude a trial court from imposing a 10 percent administrative fee to cover a county’s cost of collecting a “restitution fine” (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (l)) ordered pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (a)(3)(A). 

     Here, defendant Steven Mark Robertson pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378), admitted an allegation that he was personally armed with a firearm during the commission of the offense (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (c)), and further admitted that he had two prior convictions for narcotics offenses (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (b)).  The trial court sentenced him to 13 years in state prison and imposed other orders, including a restitution fine of $1,200 pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b), with a 10 percent “administrative fee.” 

     On appeal, defendant contends that the administrative fee imposed in connection with the restitution fine is unauthorized and must be stricken.  Defendant also requests that we correct a clerical error in the abstract of judgment to reflect his 91 days of presentence custody credit.  We will affirm the judgment, including the administrative fee, and will direct the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment.  We also note that the abstract of judgment fails to include the $20 court security fee imposed by the court pursuant to Penal Code section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1); we will direct the trial court to correct this error as well.

■ HELD:

Trial court sentence and order imposing a restitution fine and administrative fee is affirmed where the court properly interpreted the statute and added the 10 percent administrative fee to the restitution fine imposed pursuant to Penal Code sec. 1202.4 (a)(3)(A).
People v. Robertson-C058306-5/26/09 CA3
People v. Robertson-C058306-5/26/09 CA3-PDF

California Supreme And Appellate Court Opinions Directory       
Case Summaries Directory
Criminal Law Sentencing Case Summaries Table of Contents