Skip to content
Name: People v. Hamed
Case #: H039223
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 11/26/2013
Summary

At sentencing, trial court is required to specify how it calculated Penal Code section 290.3, fine and list statutory bases for penalties and assessments. At his sentencing for possession of child pornography (Pen. Code, §311.11), the trial court ordered Hamed to pay a $1,230 sex offender fine “pursuant to Penal Code section 290.3.” The record did not mention penalty assessments. Hamed challenged the fine on appeal based on People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, which held that the statutory basis and amount of fines and penalty assessments must be specified in the court’s oral pronouncement of judgment and specifically listed in the abstract of judgment. Held: Fine reduced. For enumerated offenses, section 290.3 provides a fine of $300 for the first offense and $500 for subsequent offenses. Citing High, the Court of Appeal found the trial court erred in not stating the manner in which it calculated the fine or the statutory bases for the penalty assessments. It noted that in People v. Sharret (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 859, the court approved a procedure whereby the trial court orally pronounced the base fine with statutory basis, “plus penalties,” and the court clerk thereafter set forth the specific penalties and surcharges in the appropriate amounts in the minute order and abstract of judgment. The trial court did not follow either of the procedures approved in High or Sharret in Hamed’s case. The appellate court identified the seven penalty assessments applicable to section 290.3 fines and recalculated the fine to correct a $30 error, ordering the trial court to prepare an amended abstract of judgment.