# People v. Castellanos

> California Court of Appeal · July 29, 2009 · 175 Cal. App. 4th 1524

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9745052

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LUIS CASTELLANOS, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** July 29, 2009
- **Citations:** 175 Cal. App. 4th 1524; 98 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1; 2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1256
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Kriegler
- **Judges:** Turner, Kriegler
- **Cited by:** 68 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9745052

## Opinion text

KRIEGLER, J., Concurring.
This court filed its original opinion in this appeal on May 18, 2009, holding that a $10 fine generated six additional penalties under the Penal and Government Codes. I concurred in the judgment, but noted the increasingly complex system of fines, fees, and penalties have a negative impact on the criminal justice system.
It turns out we erred in our original holding that the $10 fine resulted in six additional penalties. As pointed out by the amicus curiae Administrative Office of the Courts, we missed one—defendant was subject to a seventh penalty, which we failed to apply.
I again concur in the judgment of this court and repeat my earlier observations. However laudable these charges may be, the patchwork nature of the ever-growing financial penalties in criminal actions has created a system that begins to match the complexity of the federal income tax. The analysis in this court’s opinion today demonstrates the point. It is doubtful that criminal trial lawyers and trial court judges have the ability to keep track of the myriad of charges that now attach to criminal convictions. This case is a good example of the situation—one $10 fine generates seven additional penalties, each of which is separately stated in the Penal or Government Codes.
From the institutional viewpoint of the criminal justice system, the current approach is problematic. The penalties in a criminal action, including any financial penalties, should be easily identifiable. Prosecutors should be able to clearly determine the financial consequences of a case when assessing *1534 punishment and negotiating case settlements. Defense counsel should be able to clearly and concisely explain the possible financial charges to the client to ensure that when a guilty or no contest plea is entered, the defendant does so with full knowledge of its economic consequences. And trial courts should not have to search the Penal, Government, or Health and Safety Codes in an attempt to identify mandatory fines, fees, or penalties, some of which may have no logical connection to a pending case.
This is not a trifling matter. This court deals with issues surrounding the imposition of financial charges on a regular basis. Undoubtedly, the trial courts expend precious resources in attempting to properly impose the mandated penalties. The expansive criminal justice system in California generates large amounts of revenue for the state and local governments. It ought to do so in a more straightforward manner.
There is one final note to add. As the Legislature grapples with the budget deficit, there is talk of new and additional fines, fees, and assessments in criminal cases. The system, as it exists, is likely to only become more complicated in the immediate future.
Appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied July 8, 2009, S172602.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9745052. Public record. Not legal advice.