OPINION | : | |
: | No. 97-1101 | |
of | : | |
: | March 20, 1998 | |
DANIEL E. LUNGREN | : | |
Attorney General | : | |
: | ||
ANTHONY M. SUMMERS | : | |
Deputy Attorney General | : | |
: |
THE HONORABLE CHARLES R. MACK, YOLO COUNTY COUNSEL,
has requested an opinion on the following question:
Does the $200 fee paid by a person granted probation for a crime of domestic
violence constitute a "fine, penalty, or forfeiture" to which penalty assessment provisions
apply?
CONCLUSION
The $200 fee paid by a person granted probation for a crime of domestic
violence does not constitute a "fine, penalty, or forfeiture" to which penalty assessment
provisions apply.
Penal Code section 1464 Footnote No. 1
provides that "there shall be levied a state penalty . . . upon every fine, penalty or forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts for criminal offenses . . . ." Government Code section 76000 is similar, but applies to counties: "In each county there shall be levied an additional penalty . . . upon every fine, penalty or forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts for criminal offenses . . . ." The effect of
these two statutes is to levy a penalty assessment of approximately 170 percent upon the
amount of any "fine, penalty, or forfeiture."
Footnote No. 2
The question we are asked to resolve is whether the payment of a fee
imposed as a condition of probation for a crime involving domestic violence is a "fine,
penalty, or forfeiture" to which these penalty assessment provisions are applicable. The
fee is collected to fund various programs dealing with domestic violence and is set forth
in section 1203.097, which provides:
"(a) If a person is granted probation for a crime in which the victim is a person defined in Section 6211 of the Family Code, the terms of probation shall include all of the following:
". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
"(5) The defendant shall pay a minimum of a two-hundred-dollar ($200) payment to be disbursed as specified in this paragraph. If, after a hearing in court on the record, the court finds that the defendant does not have the ability to pay, the court may reduce or waive this fee."
". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
"(11) The conditions of probation may include, in lieu of a fine, but not in lieu of the fund payment required under paragraph (5), one or more of the following requirements . . . .
". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ."
We conclude that the "payment" described in section 1203.097 is not a "fine, penalty, or forfeiture" for purposes of section 1464 or Government Code section 76000.
In examining the language of section 1203.097, we are directed to harmonize
its provisions to the extent possible (see Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1379, 1387), while arriving at an interpretation that effectuates the
intent of the Legislature (Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 721,724). In determining legislative intent, " . . . we turn first to the statutory language, since the
words the Legislature chose are the best indicators of its intent. [Citation.]" (Freedom
Newspapers, Inc. v. Orange County Employees Retirement System (1993) 6 Cal.4th 821, 826.) We give the words "their usual and ordinary meaning. [Citations.]" (Dafonte v.
Up-Right, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 593, 601.)
Read together, subdivisions (a)(5) and (a)(11) of section 1203.097 lead to
the inescapable conclusion that the Legislature did not intend the domestic violence
program fee to be considered a fine, penalty, or forfeiture. The Legislature never used the
words "penalty," "fine," or "forfeiture," to describe the payment. In subdivision (a)(11),
the Legislature explicitly distinguished between the "fund payment required under
paragraph (5)" on the one hand, and a "fine" on the other.
"Fines," "penalties," and "forfeitures" have well established and settled
meanings. (See 23 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 113, 116 (1954).) When the Legislature intends
to denote punishment imposed for a crime or offense against the law, it uses such terms
rather than "payment." Here, the Legislature makes this distinction readily apparent as
set forth in section 1203.097, subdivision (a)(11).
We reject the suggestion that People v. Sierra (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1690,
requires our reaching a different conclusion. In Sierra the court considered whether
section 1464 and Government Code section 76000 applied to "a drug program fee"
specified in Health and Safety Code section 11372.7. The court had no difficulty in
concluding that the fee was a penalty and fine, since the statute so identified it. (Id., at p.
1695.) The court stated:
"Appellant's interpretation of Health and Safety Code section 11372.7 would lead to absurd consequences by reading out of that very section the fact that it is a fine and/or a penalty. . . . Appellant's interpretation does violence to the express language of the statute and to the clear intent of the Legislature . . . ." (Id., at p. 1696.)
No such claim may be made with respect to section 1203.097. The Legislature never refers to the fund payment as a fine, penalty, or forfeiture, but rather distinguishes it from such characterization.
We conclude that the $200 fee paid by a person granted probation for a crime
of domestic violence does not constitute a "fine, penalty, or forfeiture" to which penalty
assessment provisions apply.