Modification: People v. Cota

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

FERNANDO L. COTA,

Defendant and Appellant.

No. D074935

(Super. Ct. No. SCD277673)

California Courts of Appeal

Fourth Appellate District

Division One

Filed March 20, 2020

THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on February 26, 2020, is modified on page 4 of the dissent:

Language contained in footnote 9 is deleted in its entirety with the following inserted in its place:

Statewide, there is a "lack of complete and accurate data on fine and fee collections." (Legis. Analyst, Improving California's Criminal Fine and Fee System (2016) p. 3 <https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2016/3322/criminal-fine-and-fee-system-010516.pdf> [as of February 25, 2020], archived at <https://perma.cc/7HAM-YM8U>.) Available statistics often include infractions, making it difficult to determine the collection and default rates for criminal defendants convicted of felonies and misdemeanors. (See Judicial Council of California, Report to the Legislature: Revenue Collected for Fiscal Year 2018-19 (2019) <https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/lr-2019-JC-revenue-collected-fy-2018-19-gov-68514.pdf> [as of February 25, 2020], archived at <https://perma.cc/29WE-PPKH>.) But it is clear California collects only a small percentage of what it is owed each year. Outstanding delinquent debt has increased from five to ten billion in the last decade, while revenue collections have fallen from a peak of $2 billion to $1.4 billion; "these two trend lines propose . . . an ominous prospect for California about the durability and sustainability of a criminal fine, fee and penalty system as a revenue stream . . . ." (Martin Hoshino, Administrative Director of the Judicial Council of the California Courts, updating the Judicial Council on Fines and Fees (Dec. 2019) <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xOvNAv9C-c&t=2s> [as of February 25, 2020], archived at <https://perma.cc/H4YZ-TGG4>.) Much of this delinquent debt may be uncollectable---meaning the cost of collection exceeds the potential recovery. (Legis. Analyst, Governor's Criminal Fine and Fee Proposals (2017) pp. 7‒8 <https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2017/3600/Criminal-Fine-Fee-030317.pdf> [as of February 25, 2020], archived at <https://perma.cc/6VUN-WWV7>.)

Los Angeles and San Francisco report low rates of collection. Los Angeles collects as little as nine percent. The county abolished local fees and cancelled associated debt in early 2020. (L.A. County Bd. of Spvrs., Eliminating Los Angeles County Criminal System Administrative Fees (Feb. 18, 2020) pp. 5, 7-9 [Motion] <http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/144092.pdf> [as of March 19, 2020], archived at <https://perma.cc/8FU3-KTPC>; County of L.A., Statement of Proceedings for the Regular Meeting of the Board of Supervisors (Feb. 18, 2020) pp. 8-9 [Motion approved] <http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/sop/1069198_021820.pdf> [as of March 18, 2020], archived at <https://perma.cc/K2BJ-BU66>.) San Francisco estimates its collection rate is less than 20 percent. The city abolished local fees and canceled outstanding debt in 2018. (The Financial Justice Project, et al., Criminal Justice Administrative Fees: High Pain for People, Low Gain for Government (2018) pp. 1, 6 <https://sftreasure.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/Hig%20Pain%20Low%20Gain%20FINAL_04-24-2019.pdf> [as of February 25, 2020], archived at <https://perma.cc/B9E6-CD9F>.)

There is no change in judgment.

HALLER, Acting P. J.