People v. Grant - Court Opinion on Penal Code Section 1202.5 Fine

CA Court of Appeal Opinions

Filed March 11th, 2026

Detected March 11th, 2026

Summary

The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, filed an opinion in People v. Grant on March 11, 2026. The court agreed to strike a $41 fine imposed under Penal Code section 1202.5, as the conviction was not for a theft-related offense as required by the statute.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The California Court of Appeal, Division Four, has issued a non-precedential memorandum opinion in the case of People v. Grant, docket number A173420, filed on March 11, 2026. The court addressed an appeal concerning a $41 fine imposed under Penal Code section 1202.5, which was stayed by the trial court. The defendant pleaded no contest to resisting an officer (Penal Code section 69(a)) and admitted a prior strike conviction. The appellate court, agreeing with the Attorney General, found that the fine was improperly imposed as section 1202.5 applies only to theft-related offenses, not resisting an officer.

This decision highlights the importance of ensuring fines are correctly applied according to statutory requirements. While this specific case involves a minor fine and a non-precedential opinion, it serves as a reminder for legal professionals and courts to verify the applicability of specific penalty statutes to the underlying convictions. The court's action in striking the fine, after the defendant's counsel raised the issue through correspondence, demonstrates the procedural path for correcting such errors. No specific compliance deadline or penalty for non-compliance is noted, as this is an appellate court ruling on a specific case.

What to do next

Review Penal Code section 1202.5 applicability to conviction types
Ensure fines are statutorily authorized for the specific offense

Penalties

The $41 fine under Penal Code section 1202.5 was ordered to be stricken.

Source document (simplified)

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 11, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

People v. Grant CA1/4

California Court of Appeal

Citations: None known
Docket Number: A173420
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Opinion
Authorities (0)
Cited By (0)
Summaries (0)
Similar Cases (0)
PDF

Combined Opinion

Filed 3/11/26 P. v. Grant CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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

                                  FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                              DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, A173420
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Mendocino County Super. Ct.
JOSE CARLOS GRANT, No. 25CR06442)
Defendant and Appellant.

                                   MEMORANDUM OPINION1
     In March 2025, Jose Carlos Grant pled no contest to resisting or

deterring an officer in violation of Penal Code section 69, subdivision (a),2 and
admitted a previous strike conviction. At the sentencing hearing in May, the
trial court imposed monetary penalties, including a $41 fine under
section 1202.5 that it stayed. Grant contends the trial court erred by
imposing the fine and asks that we strike it. The Attorney General agrees
the fine should be stricken, and so do we.
Before appealing on the ground that a fine is improper, a defendant
must first raise the issue in the trial court—either at the time of sentencing,

     1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion pursuant to the

California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1.
2 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
or, if the error is not discovered until after sentencing, by written motion,
which may be informal. (§ 1237.2.)
Grant has met this requirement. On September 10, the lawyer
representing Grant on appeal sent a letter to the trial court explaining that
she had discovered the error in her review of the appellate record and
requesting that the court strike the section 1202.5 fine. The trial court
responded by letter that the fine was stayed, and Grant’s lawyer followed up
with a letter on October 15 asking for a decision. Grant represents—and the
Attorney General does not dispute—that the trial court then amended the
abstract of judgment reducing other fines not at issue here but not striking
the section 1202.5 fine. Grant’s lawyer sent a final letter to the trial court on
November 18 renewing Grant’s request that the court strike the fine. Grant
represents—and the Attorney General does not dispute—that the trial court
has not responded.
Turning to the merits, section 1202.5 authorizes a fine to be imposed
when a defendant is convicted of one or more enumerated theft-related
offenses. (§ 1202.5, subd. (a).) Resisting or deterring an officer in violation of
Penal Code section 69 is not one of the listed offenses, and therefore section
1202.5 does not authorize the fine (or any included penalty or surcharge).
(See ibid.)

                                    2
                           DISPOSITION
  The judgment is modified to strike the section 1202.5 fine and

associated penalty or surcharge assessments. The judgment is affirmed as
modified. The trial court is directed to correct its sentencing minute order
and the abstract of judgment to reflect that no section 1202.5 fine of $41 or
any other amount is imposed, and to send a certified copy of the corrected
abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
GOLDMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

BROWN, P. J.
STREETER, J.