Opinion
C089043
02-11-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANTUAN JAVIER TEJEDA-JUAREZ, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. CRF171411)
Defendant Antuan Javier Tejeda-Juarez pleaded guilty to one count of sexual intercourse or sodomy with a person 10 years of age or under and one count of lewd and lascivious conduct with a person under the age of 14. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 31 years to life in state prison. On appeal, he contends: (1) the non-visitation protective order imposed on him with respect to the victim needs to be amended to reflect that it ends when the victim reaches the age of 18; and (2) we must remand so the trial court can articulate for the record the statutory basis for various fees and assessments that it imposed at sentencing. The Attorney General concedes both points.
We shall direct the trial court to correct the error in the non-visitation order and remand to allow the court to state the statutory basis for the fees and assessments. We otherwise affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Due to the limited nature of the claims on appeal, we need not recite defendant's crimes in any detail. It suffices to say that defendant committed multiple sexual acts upon a child under the age of 10. Following a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of sexual intercourse or sodomy with a person 10 years of age or under (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (a)) and one count of lewd and lascivious conduct with a person under the age of 14 (§ 288, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 31 years to life in state prison. The court imposed a non-visitation order in a minute order as follows: "The Court orders no visitation pursuant to [section] 1202.5 PC." The court also imposed a sex offender fine in the amount of $1,140.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
The court miscited the applicable statutory section as "1202.5" rather than 1202.05 in the minute order.
DISCUSSION
I
Correction to Non-Visitation Protective Order
Defendant contends, and the Attorney General concedes, that the non-visitation protective order imposed on him with respect to the victim needs to be amended to reflect that it ends on the victim's eighteenth birthday. We accept the Attorney General's concession.
The trial court broadly ordered no visitation between defendant and the victim under section 1202.05. By its own terms, a non-visitation order imposed pursuant to section 1202.05 is limited to victims who are minors. (People v. Ochoa (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 562, 565 [§ 1202.05, subd. (a) encompasses "only child victims of enumerated sex offenses for which a defendant was sentenced to prison"].) "Nothing in the legislative history [of section 1202.05] suggests any intention or expectation that the act would affect visitation between adult victims and their childhood abusers. On the contrary, the Legislature clearly contemplated that only children would be affected. . . . Once a victim has reached [the age of 18,] the act has no effect on her or his ability to visit the defendant in prison." (People v. Scott (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1323.) Here, neither of the oral pronouncements by the court nor the minute order clearly state that the visitation protective order ends when the victim reaches the age of 18. Therefore, the minute order should be amended to reflect that the non-visitation order ends on the victim's eighteenth birthday.
II
Statutory Basis for Imposition of Fees and Assessments
Defendant contends, and the Attorney General concedes, that his case must be remanded so the trial court can articulate for the record the statutory basis for various fees and assessments that it imposed at sentencing. We accept the Attorney General's concession.
As a general rule, the abstract of judgment filed by a trial court must include "a detailed recitation of all the fees, fines and penalties on the record." (People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200; see also People v. Sharret (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 859, 864 [reasoning that the trial court may orally impose penalties by shorthand references to "penalty assessments" but the trial court clerk should then specify penalties in the minute order and abstract of judgment].) Here, during the sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a sex offender fine under section 290.3, along with related assessments, as follows: "Pursuant to Penal Code Section 290.3 the Court imposed a $300 base fine which comes out to $1,140 with assessments." The court did not provide any further explanation of the basis for the assessments during the hearing, in the minute order, or in the abstract of judgment. Accordingly, we agree with the parties that we must remand so that the trial court may "separately list, with the statutory basis, all fines, fees and penalties imposed." (High, at p. 1201.)
DISPOSITION
The trial court is directed to prepare an amended minute order reflecting that the non-visitation protective order under section 1202.05 ends on the victim's eighteenth birthday. The matter is remanded to the trial court for the purpose of allowing the court to identify the statutory basis for the penalty assessments attached to the sex offender fine imposed under section 290.3. The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment listing the statutory basis for each assessment imposed and forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The judgment is otherwise affirmed.
/s/_________
BLEASE, Acting P. J. We concur: /s/_________
DUARTE, J. /s/_________
HOCH, J.