 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Sorenson1/5/2005
id the court advise that defendant could be ordered to pay an alcohol abuse education and prevention penalty assessment of $50 under Vehicle Code section 23645, a county alcohol and drug problem assessment of $100 under Vehicle Code section 23649, and a county alcohol testing penalty of $50 under section 1463.14, subdivision (b).
However, the law requires only that a defendant be advised generally of the " `permissible range of punishment provided by statute' " (People v. Barella (1999) 20 Cal.4th 261, 266, quoting Bunnell v. Superior Court (1975) 13 Cal.3d 592, 605), not specifically about each of the components of which a hypothetical maximum punishment might consist. "Common sense dictates that the court need only apprise defendant of the sentence possibilities in a general fashion. It is not necessary that defendant be given a detailed lecture on criminal procedure as it pertains to all the various dispositional devices available." (Scoggins v. Superior Court (1977) 65 Cal.App.3d 873, 877.)
In People v. Nystrom (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1177 the defendant was advised in writing that he could get a maximum penalty of four years in prison and a $20,000 fine and that another possible consequence of his guilty plea was " ` estitution and/or a restitution fine. ($100-$10,000) . . . .' " (Id. at p. 1180.) On appeal he complained about the imposition of victim restitution of $12,866. (Id. at p. 1179.) The Court of Appeal interpreted this form as advising the defendant "that his maximum monetary liability might be as much as $30,000 ($20,000 penalty fine plus $10,000 restitution and/or restitution fine)." (Id. at p. 1181.) The court concluded, "the defendant has no basis for complaint when the total monetary liability (the combined amount of fines and restitution) does not exceed the maximum of which the defendant was advised." (Id. at p. 1181.)
In this case, defendant was advised that he could be ordered to contribute $10,000 to the State Restitution Fund. In fact, the court imposed a total of $2,000 in restitution fines, with half suspended pursuant to section 1202.45. Defendant was advised generally that he might be ordered to pay fines and fees of $5,000. In fact, the court imposed a total of $1,625 in fines, fees, and penalty assessments. Under these circumstances we conclude that defendant was adequately advised about the potential amount of the penalties he faced. The trial court was not required to cite every possibly applicable statute in advising defendant.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Rushing, P.J., Premo, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|