The Need for Clarity In Ordering Fines
In People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, the court addressed the need for clarity in ordering fines, fees and assessments:
"Although we recognize that a detailed recitation of all the fees, fines and penalties on the record may be tedious, California law does not authorize shortcuts.
All fines and fees must be set forth in the abstract of judgment. (People v. Sanchez (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1332 laboratory fee; People v. Hong (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1071, 1080 restitution fine.)
The abstract of judgment form used here, Judicial Council form CR-290 (rev. Jan. 1, 2003) provides a number of lines for 'other' financial obligations in addition to those delineated with statutory references on the preprinted form.
If the abstract does not specify the amount of each fine, the Department of Corrections cannot fulfill its statutory duty to collect and forward deductions from prisoner wages to the appropriate agency. (Hong, supra, 64 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1078-1079.)
At a minimum, the inclusion of all fines and fees in the abstract may assist state and local agencies in their collection efforts. (Pen. Code, 1205, subd. (c).)" (People v. High, supra, at p. 1200.)
The court in High stated that it would "direct the trial court to correct the cited clerical errors," and in the disposition it remanded the cause with directions to "separately list, with the statutory basis, all fines, fees and penalties imposed on each count ...." (People v. High, supra, 119 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1200-1201.)