WPC znp{f>p9_EJ> k޵ۊϑ\/s.jg&ƌթ@M #EvL)y2>>CK5]LK1< %~ m0GnYW 0P w@ 4H \ " UN3  G   AXB 0cU N 0D^#!N^ UN} B 0lJ D+ 0K'(D3 Q$ w!      t    \R3'Letterhead2\U3|x_ <6X9`("Courier 10cpiXx6X@8;X@* `(CG TimesScalable P7P,xA`&UniversScalableTxP7P) `(CG TimesScalablec P7P* `(CG TimesScalableXXw P7XP((w$   V DW DX DY DZ D[ E\ e] Ӏ^ D_ D-1q&Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5  %$      1  .  _ThefollowingdiscussionborrowssubstantiallyfromtherehearingpetitionfiledinDickerson,wherethiswriterisalsothecounselofrecord.)^S Z 6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 !$#&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK Callejas postrevocation W]e i]f %$      2  .  _StatutoryreferencesaretothePenalCodeifnototherwisespecified.(`%2%$ w!        0  .xhH  Z6Times New Roman Regular(#$  0  HP LaserJet 4,,,,0e1(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular s %$      3  .  _ [W]erecognizedinWalkerthat,ingeneral,thespecificamountofthe  restitutionfinetobeimposedonadefendant...isapropersubjectofpleanegotiations....(Moser,supra,atp.733,fn.11.) %$      4  .  _Therewasnoprobationreportinthepresentcase,asthepleaandsentenceoccurredatthesameproceeding.(SeeCT55) d  %$      5  .  _Itwillberecalledthatthepresentcaseinvolvesfinesandpenaltyassessmentsinadditiontotherestitutionfines,andthatappellanthasclaimedthattheseotherpenalsanctionsmustbereducedtothestatutoryminimumsunderthelogicofWalker.(SeeAOB,pp.79.)(D3 Q$ w!      Q'   _ @  @ SorensonSupplementalLetterBrief,  H026774,page  1  __'dxd( $ Figure  1    Q'   _ @  @ SorensonSupplementalLetterBrief,  H026774,page  1  w!    _\ (\ \ "\     _ ] TRY3'LetterheadX3' Letter 3'Letterhead3'T] _ ^ ] z] ^   October20,2004MichaelJ.Yerly,ClerkCourtofAppeal,SixthAppellateDistrict333WestSantaClaraStreetSanJose,CA95113Re:0  Peoplev.Sorenson,H0267748"8"   SupplementalLetterBriefDearMr.Yerly:  ThecourthasrequestedsupplementalletterbriefsfromthepartiesintheabovecasediscussingtheapplicationofthecourtsrecentdecisioninPeoplev.Dickerson,  H026484,2004Cal.App.LEXIS1675,decidedOctober6,2004.Ourresponseistwofold.First,asexplainedinPart1below,Dickersonwaswrongly ! decidedandshouldnotbefollowed.Alternatively,asexplainedinPart2,Dickerson " isdistinguishableonitsfactsfromthepresentcasebecausetheadvisementsconcerningtherestitutionfineinthepresentcaseweremadeinpermissivelanguage,whilethe $  advisementsinDickersonweremadeinmandatorylanguage. %!!   // P // ($$   // P // ,((  -)) Ї1.8  7_Dickerson_IsWronglyDecidedinthatitisContrarytotheSupreme x CourtsOpinioninWalker,andThusViolatesSettledPrinciplesof |  StareDecisis.   #  1      |  33  AppellantrespectfullycontendsthattheopinioninDickersonisdirectly   contrarytotheCaliforniaSupremeCourtsdecisioninPeoplev.Walker(1991)54 /  Cal.3d1013(Walker),andthusviolativeoftheruleofstaredecisis.(AutoEquity b Sales,Inc.v.SuperiorCourt(1962)57Cal.2d450,455.)#b7>#7bԀAsexplainedbelow,there  isbutasinglefactualdistinctionbetweenthefactsofDickersonandthepresentcase, P ontheonehand,andWalkerontheother,namelythatanadvisementaboutapotential   penalconsequenceofarestitutionfinewasgiveninDickersonandthepresentcase, .  butnotinWalker.However,thisisadistinctionwithoutameaningfuldifferencein a  theinstantcase,andisnotaproperbasisfortheopinioninDickersontohavereached   aresultcontrarytotheSupremeCourtsholdinginWalker.Asexplainedbelow,the O  analysisofthisCourtinDickersonfindingnoviolationofthepleabargainis,pointby  point,contrarytotheholdingoftheSupremeCourtinWalker,renderingDickerson - anopinionwhichshouldnotbefollowed#b7 #7bԀbecauseitisbasedonlegalanalysiswhich ` violatessettledprinciplesofstaredecisis.    ThepresentcaseandDickersonareidenticaltoWalkerinnearlyeverypertinent N detail:ineachcase,thedefendantagreedtopleadguiltyinexchangeforaspecifiedsentenceanddismissalofothercharges(Walker,supra,atp.1018;Dickerson,slip , opin.,p.1;CT55;RT2431);#b7#7bԀineachcasetherewasnomentionofarestitutionfine _  aspartofthepleabargain(ibid.);andineachcasethejudgedidnotgivethe ! admonitionrequiredpursuanttoPenalCodesection1192.5. #  2      ׀(Walker,supra,atpp. "M 10291030.)Lastly,ineachcasethecourtimposedasubstantialrestitutionfinewhenitsentencedthedefendant.  TheSupremeCourtheldinWalkerthatarestitutionfineconstitutes ^& punishment,andthattheamountofsuchfines shouldgenerallybeconsideredinplea ' negotiations.(Walker,atp.1024.)Thecourtultimatelyconcludedthat the$5,000 x restitutionfinewasasignificantdeviationfromthenegotiatedtermsofthepleabargain...(id.,atp.1029),whichrequiredreductionofthefinetothestatutory  f minimum.(Ibid.)AstheSupremeCourtlaterexplained,thebasisfortheholdingin   WalkerwastheCourtsimplicitfinding thatthedefendantinthatcasecouldhave D  understoodthenegotiatedpleaagreementtosignifythatnosubstantialfinewouldbeimposed.(InreMoser7(1993)6Cal.4th342,#7#77356.) 2   TheonlynotabledifferencebetweenthesituationpresentedinWalkerversus e thatofDickersonandthepresentcasehastodowiththeadvisementgiventothe   defendantaboutpossiblefines.WhenthetrialcourtinWalkeracceptedtheplea C  bargain,ittoldthedefendant themaximumpenaltiesprovidedbylawforthisoffenseare3years,5years,or7yearsinstateprisonandafineupto$10,000.(Walker,atp. 1  1018.)InDickerson,thecourtadvisedappellantthatit couldimposefinesupto d  $50,000...andthatit mustimposearestitutionfineofbetween$200and$10,000.(Dickerson,slipopin.p.2.)Inthepresentcase,thecourttoldappellant, #77#Youcanbe B orderedtopayfinesandfeestotalingasmuchas5,000dollars....[]Youcanbeorderedtocontribute$10,000totheStateRestitutionFundwitharequiredminimumcontributionof$200.(RT2526)77#b7#7b c #77#  InDickerson,thisCourtconcluded,contrarytoWalker,thattherewasno  impliedconditionofthepleabargainthatthedefendantnotreceiveasubstantialpenalfine.(Dickerson,slipopin.,pp.1013.)WithallduerespecttothisCourt,the t  reasoninginDickersonastothispointisneitherlogicalnorpersuasive,andisdirectly !/ contrarytothebasesoftheholdinginWalker. "b   TheopinionsuggeststhatthedefendantsinterpretationofWalkerasrequiring  $ thatasubstantialrestitutionfinebemadepartofapleabargain, restsuponanerroneous,overbroadreadingofWalker.(Dickerson,slipopinion,p.10,quotingMoser, s& supra,6Cal.4thatp.356.)Tothecontrary,theDickersoncourtsinterpretationof '. Walkerisimpermissiblynarrow. (a    Tobeginwith,theopinionfailstoacknowledgethatMoserisinapposite.That  *! caseconcernedthequestionwhethererroneousadvisementsastothelengthofadefendantsparoleperiodrenderedthisfactorapartofthepleabargain.AsthemajorityinMosernoted,theperiodofparoleforanoffenseisnotamattersubjecttothetrial --% courtsdiscretion,andthusnotafactorwhichcouldeverbeapartofpleanegotiationsoratermofapleabargain.(Id.,atp.357.)Bycontrast,theSupremeCourtinWalker  3 expresslyrecognizedthediscretionarynatureofrestitutionfinesbeyondtherequiredminimum,andadmonishedbothtrialcourtsandthepartiestopleaagreementsto takecaretoconsiderrestitutionfinesduringthepleanegotiations.(Walker,supra,atp. D  1030.) #  3      ׀InDickersonandinthepresentcase,asinWalker,therewasnothingsaidin w thedescriptionofthepleaagreementwhichindicatedthatasubstantialrestitutionfinewascontemplatedasapartofthedefendantspunishment.InDickersonandthe e presentcase,asinWalker,thedefendanthadareasonableexpectation,basedonthe   negotiatedpleabargain,thatnosuchsubstantialfinewouldbeimposed.(Moser, C  supra,atp.356.) v    ThebasicflawinDickersoncanbefoundinitsstatementthat Walkershould 1  notbeunderstoodasfindingthattherestitutionfinehasbeenandwillbethesubjectofpleanegotiationsineverycriminalcase.(Slipopin.,p.10.)ThisconclusionmisreadsthemeaningoftheholdinginWalker.TheholdinginWalkerdoesnot B dependonwhetherornotarestitutionfinewastheactualsubjectofpleanegotiations.Infact,thereisnosuggestioninWalkeritselfthattheissueofrestitutionfineswas 0 everapartofpleanegotiations.Whatismore,theSupremeCourtsconclusioninWalkerthattheabsenceofasubstantialpenalfinewasanimplicittermoftheplea  bargainisbasedonthefactthatthestatedtermsofthepleabargainmadenomentionofarestitutionfine.(Moser,supra,atp.356;Walker,supra,atpp.1024,1029.) t    BoththepresentcaseandDickersonareindistinguishablefromWalkerinthis !/ regard.ItfollowsthatthisCourtsconclusioninDickerson,basedontheabsenceof "b anymentionofrestitutionfinesinthestatementofthetermsofthepleabargain,that [thistopic]wasnotapartofthepleaagreement(Dickersonslipopin.,p.11, @% quotingMoser,supra,atp.379)isbothbesidesthepointandcontrarytotheholding s& inWalker. '.   Dickersonnotesthat Walkerdoesnotprohibitcriminaldefendantsfrom (a  strikingwhateverbargainappearstobeintheirbestinterests,includingleavingtheimpositionofthefinestothesentencingcourt.Asstated,thepropositionistrueenough.If,whenannouncingthetermsofthepleabargain,thecourtorpartiesstatethatthepleaagreementlefttothetrialcourtanydecisionastotheamountoffinestobeimposed,adefendantcouldhardlyclaimthatimpositionofadiscretionaryfineviolatedthepleabargain.Butwhere,asinthepresentcase,Dickerson,andWalker, w nothingatallwassaidaboutsuchafine,thedefendanthadareasonableexpectation 2 thattherewouldbenosubstantialpenalfineimposed.(Moser,supra,atp.356; e Walker,supra,atpp.1024,1029.)     TheopinioninDickersonsuggeststhatPeoplev.DeFilippis(1992)9Cal.4th C  1876,18781879standsforthepropositionthatitwasenoughthatappellantwasadvisedofthepotentialconsequenceofarestitutionfine.(Dickersonslipopin.,p.11.) 1  ThisconclusioncouldonlybereachedbystandingDeFilippisonitshead.The d  holdinginDeFilippisisthattherewasnopleabargainatall,andbecausetherewas   nopleabargain,Walkerdidnotapply.(Id.,atp.1879.)Inthepresentcaseand B Dickersonitisundisputedthattherewasapleabargain,i.e., aguiltyplea[was] u enteredinexchangeforspecifiedbenefitssuchas...anagreedmaximumpunishment.7Ԁ(Walker,supra,atp.#73#7Ԁ1024.)Infact,DeFilippisinvolvedthecomplete c converseofthepresentcaseandDickerson!nopleabargain,andafailuretogivethe  requiredadvisementastoarestitutionfine.(DeFilippis,supra,atpp.18791880.)#7b4#7ԀThe A courtinthatcasefoundnoviolationofWalkerbecausetherewasnopleabargain,and t  thenconcludedthatthedefendantcouldnotcomplainabouttheabsenceofanadvisementbecausehewaivedsuchanargumentoferrorbyfailingtoobjectatthetimeofsentencing.(Ibid.)DeFilippisisentirelyinapposite,anddoesnotsupportthe  $ DickersoncourtsattempttoavoidtheclearholdinginWalker. @%   Dickersonalsostressesthefactthattheprobationreportnotifiedappellantof s& restitutionfinesof$6,800,andthatappellantdidnotobjectatthesentencinghearingtoeitherthisrecommendationortothecourtsimpositionoffinesinthisamount, concludingthatappellantscounsel couldhavebeenexpectedtoobject...[i]fthese  *! substantialrestitutionfinesviolateddefendantspleabargain....(Slipopin.,p.12.) #  4       x  However,Walkerisindistinguishableastothesetwopoints,sinceinthatcasethe  3 probationreporthadrecommendeda$7,000restitutionfineandtherewasnoobjectiontothe$5,000fineimposedbythetrialcourt.(Walker,supra,atp.1019)#75#7ԀThusitwas   astrueinWalkerasitwasinDickersonandthepresentcasethat nobodyinthetrial D  courtseemedtothinkthattheimpositionof[substantial]restitutionfines...violatedthetermsofthepleabargain.(Dickersonslipopin.,p.12.) 2   Nonetheless,ourSupremeCourtconcludedinWalker#7;#7thatthefineimposed e withoutobjectionatthetimeofsentencingviolatedthepleabargainbecauseitwasa significantdeviationfromthenegotiatedtermsofthepleabargain...(Walker, C  supra,atp.1029),aconclusionthatthisCourtisboundby,evenifitdisagreeswith v  thereasoningbehindit.(AutoEquity,supra,57Cal.2datp.455;InreMarriageof 1  Curtis,(1992)7Cal.App.4th1,10.)ThiscourtsdeterminationinDickersonthat the d  partiesatleastimplicitlyagreedthatadditionalpunishmentintheformofstatutoryfinesandfeeswouldbelefttothediscretionofthesentencingcourt...(Dickerson B slipopin.,p.12)isthuscompletelycontrarytotheholdingoftheSupremeCourtinWalker,onanallbutidenticalfactualrecord,thattheabsenceofanyreferencetoa 0 restitutionfineinthepleaagreementmeantthatthedefendant reasonablycouldhaveunderstoodthenegotiatedpleaagreementtosignifythatnosubstantialfinewouldbeimposed.(Moser,supra,atp.732.) A   WereturnfinallytothesoledistinctionbetweenWalker,ontheonehand,and t  Dickersonandthepresentcase,ontheother!thatthedefendantsinDickersonandthe !/ instantcasewereadvisedaboutapotentialrestitutionfine,andthedefendantinWalker "b wasnot.TheDickersonopiniongivesbutslightmentiontothisdistinguishingfact,  $ notingonlythatitprovides furtherconfirmationtoitshypothesisthatrestitutionfinesweresimplynotpartofthepleabargain.(Slipopin.,p.12.)Inpointoffact,thevariationintheadvisementsbetweenthepresentcaseandWalkerisa distinction '. withoutadifference.InWalker,thecourtadvisedthedefendantthathewassubject (a  toa fineofupto$10,000...withoutspecifyingthenatureofsuchafine.(Walker,  *! supra,atp.1019.)Suchanadvisementarguablyencompassedthe$5,000restitution x fineimposedbythetrialcourtinWalker.However,becausethefinewasnotpartof  3 thenegotiatedplea,theSupremeCourtfoundaviolationofthepleabargain,andreducedthefinetothestatutoryminimum.Itdidsonotbecauseofanydefectintheadvisement,butbecauseofthefailuretoincludethefineaspartofthenegotiatedplea.#*~ ?# *~ D  338   P Thetrialcourtonlyadvisedthedefendantthata$10,000finewasapossibleconsequenceoftheguiltyplea.Thiswasinadequate.Thecourtshouldhaveadviseddefendanttherewasapossible$T T 10,000penaltyfineandamandatoryrestitutionfineofbetween$U U 100and$V V 10,000.Thiserror,standingalone,wouldnotentitledefendanttoaremedyfortworeasons.[]First,defendantwaivedtheerrorbynotobjectingtothefinewhenitwasimposed.Second,hehasnotshownprejudice.Althoughthecourtadvisedhimofapossible$W W 10,000fine(withthenatureofthefineunspecified),itimposednopenaltyfineatallandonlya$X X 5,000restitutionfine.Sincetheactualfineimposedwaslessthanthatadvised,defendantwasnotprejudicedbytheincompleteadmonition.  8   P However,the$Y Y 5,000restitutionfinewasasignificantdeviationfromthenegotiatedtermsofthepleabargain.Sincethecourtdidnotgivethesection1192.5admonition,andthiswasnotmerelyafailuretoadviseoftheconsequencesoftheplea,defendantcannotbedeemedtohavewaivedhisrightsbysilentacquiescence.Nordidhewaivethemexpressly.Asharmlesserroranalysisisnotapplicable,defendantisentitledtoaremedy.Theerrorwasraisedforthefirsttimeonappeal.Therefore,thefinemustbereducedtotheminimumof$Z Z 100.  #*~ J#33LJ *~333333P33(Walker,supra,atpp.10291030.) "2 #*~ uP#*~*~  ThefactthatinthepresentcaseandDickersonthereisnotanunremediable #e defectinthenatureoftheadvisementastopenalconsequencesisofnomoment.InthiscaseandDickerson,asinWalker,thesubstantialrestitutionfineswere a C& significantdeviationfromthenegotiatedtermsofthepleabargain...,therewasno1192.5advisement,andthusnowaiverofthepresentchallenge,andtheproperremedyistheonemandatedbyWalker,reductionofthefinestothestatutoryminimumof )d!  $200.#*~*~GQ##JG*~E#  Fortheforegoingreasons,appellantsubmitsthatWalkerremainsthecontrolling B,#" authorityinthepresentcase,andthatDickersonisanincorrectlydecidedopinion u-$# whichshouldnotbefollowedinthepresentcase.3333#U332.8  DickersonisDistinguishableonItsFactsfromthePresentCase, +  RequiringaResultinthisCaseWhichComportswithWalker. /  33  Assuming,arguendo,thatthiscourtconcludesthatDickersonwascorrectly  5 decided,appellantcontendsalternativelythathiscaseisdistinguishablebecauseofthedifferentnatureoftheadvisementgiventohimaboutapotentialrestitutionfine.InDickerson,thetrialcourtutilizedmandatorylanguageinexplainingaboutthe F restitutionfine,tellingthedefendantthatitJGJG*~JG mustimposearestitutionfineofbetween y  $200and$10,000.(Dickerson,slipopin.p.2.)#*~*~X##JG*~-X#ԀBycontrast,inthepresentcase,the 4  courttoldappellantthefollowing:338  Youcanbeorderedtocontribute$10,000totheStateRestitutionFund   witharequiredminimumcontributionof$200.  33nY33333333UZ(RT2526,emphasisadded.)Thecourtsexplanationtoappellantinthepresentcasemadeitclearthattheonlymandatorypartofarestitutionfinewastheminimumamount x of$200,andthatanyotherfinewasamerepossibility.Onthisexplanation,itisfairtoinfer,underthelogicofDickerson,thatthedefendantwouldhaveunderstoodthat f hispleaincludedanobligationtopaythe requiredminimumfineof$200.However,itisanythingbutclearthatthepleabargainobligatedappellanttoacceptaspunishmentdiscretionaryfinestotalingmorethan$2,000.  UndertheclearholdingofWalker,asexplainedbytheSupremeCourtinMoser, 2 appellant*~JG couldhaveunderstoodthenegotiatedpleaagreementtosignifythatno  e substantialfinewouldbeimposed...(Moser,supra, *~6Cal.4thatp.#*~ E^#*~*~356)#*~*~^##JG*~]#Ԁinexcess " ofthemandatory$200amountdescribedbythecourt.Inthisrespect,appellantisentitledtothesameremedyaffordedtothedefendantinWalker:reductionofthefines v$ totherequiredstatutoryminimums,asdiscussedinthebriefsinthiscase.[   #  5      [ 33   P     X Respectfullysubmitted,   P     X WilliamM.Robinson,StaffAttorney B-$"    P     X SixthDistrictAppellateProgram   P     X AttorneyforAppellantJohnAndersSorenson