People v. Lobsien - Criminal Threats and Violation of Court Order Appeal

Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 27, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

People v. Lobsien CA3

California Court of Appeal

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: C104623

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (5)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

Filed 3/27/26 P. v. Lobsien CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Tehama)

THE PEOPLE, C104623

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 24CR1918)

v.

JEFFERY KURTIS LOBSIEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Jeffery Kurtis Lobsien asks this court to review
the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We will affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Defendant texted the victim threatening messages in violation of a no contact
order. In December 2024, the People charged defendant by information with criminal

1
threats (Pen. Code, § 422, subd. (a))1 and misdemeanor contact by electronic
communication device with intent to annoy (§ 653m, subd. (b)).
In March 2025, the trial court suspended proceedings under section 1368 after it
found defendant incompetent to stand trial. Prior to being transferred to the Department
of State Hospitals, defendant requested a Marsden2 hearing, which the trial court denied
because the proceedings had been suspended under section 1368.
In June 2025, the trial court found defendant was returned to competency and
reinstated the criminal proceedings. Defendant pled guilty to criminal threats and
violation of a court order. (§ 273.6.) The trial court amended the information to conform
to defendant’s plea.
In July 2025, the trial court ordered defendant to three years of formal probation
and 180 days in county jail. The court awarded defendant 468 days of custody credits. It
then asked the parties if they wanted to “waive formal reading of the remaining terms,
conditions, fines, fees, et cetera?” Both parties responded, “Yes.” The minute order
indicates the court adopted the probation report as if read into the record in its entirety
and incorporated conditions into the sentence.
The order granting probation included the following fines and fees as conditions of
probation: an $80 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), a $60 criminal
conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)),
a corresponding $300 probation revocation fine (suspended unless parole is revoked)
(§ 1202.44), a $500 domestic violence fee (§ 1203.097, subd. (a)(5)(A)), and a $200
domestic violence shelter fee (§ 1203.097, subd. (a)(11)). Defendant signed the
probation order indicating that he had read the order (or had it read to him), understood

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.

2
what it said, and agreed to comply with its terms. Neither party objected to the terms of
the probation order.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal and obtained a certificate of probable
cause.
II. DISCUSSION
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and
asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable
issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by
counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the filing of the opening
brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from
defendant. Our review has found errors in the imposition of certain assessments.
The probation order includes a $80 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8) and a
$60 conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373) as conditions of probation. These fees
are not punishment and cannot be included as terms of probation; rather, they should
have been separately ordered. (People v. Kim (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 836, 842-843
[conviction and court operation assessments are not properly included as a condition of
probation], citing People v. Pacheco (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1392, 1402, disapproved on
other grounds in People v. Trujillo (2015) 60 Cal.4th 850, 858, fn. 5.) We will modify
the judgment to reflect that the $80 court operations assessment and $60 conviction
assessment are separately imposed and are not conditions of probation.
Finding no other arguable errors that are favorable to defendant, we will affirm the
judgment as modified.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified to reflect that the $80 court operations assessment
(§ 1465.8) and $60 conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373) are separately imposed
and are not conditions of probation. The trial court is directed to amend the probation

3
order consistent with this opinion and provide a copy to the probation department. As
modified, the judgment is affirmed.

/S/

RENNER, J.

We concur:

/S/

DUARTE, Acting P. J.

/S/

WISEMAN, J.*

• Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

4