Skip to content
Name: People v. Sorenson
Case #: H026774
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 01/05/2005
Subsequent History: 4/13/05: revw. den.
Summary

Appellant entered into a negotiated plea agreement where he pleaded guilty to driving under the influence in exchange for a two-year prison sentence. He understood that the additional consequences of his plea were up to $5000 in fines and fees, and between $200 and $10,000 contribution to the State Restitution Fund. He did not object at sentencing when he was ordered to pay a $1000 restitution fine pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4 and a concurrent $500 fine and penalty assessment. The minute order added $1125 in penalty assessments and an additional suspended restitution fine of $1000 pursuant to section 1202.45. On appeal, appellant contended that any lawfully imposed restitution fines under section 1202.4 and 1202.45 had to be reduced to the statutory minimums under the compulsion of People v. Walker (1991) 54 Cal. 3d 10013, and that the penalty assessments violated the plea bargain since there was no advisement concerning them. The appellate court disagreed and affirmed. Appellant did not object either when advised that the fines within a specific range would be imposed nor when the fines were imposed. A defendant cannot establish that a later imposed fine violated his or her plea agreement without evidence that the agreement was for no fine or for a minimum fine within a statutory range. The court’s failure to recite an agreement on the fine suggests an implicit agreement that the imposition and amount of any fines would be left to the discretion of the sentencing court. Here, appellant was generally advised that he might be ordered to pay fines and fees of $5000, so he was adequately advised about the potential amount of penalties he faced. The trial court was not required to cite every possible statute in advising him.