So you want to be a justice on the Court of Appeal, eh? Presumably because you'll get to resolve critical, riveting cases like this one:
"This appeal arises from three separate cases. In each case the trial court granted
defendant probation. In the first case, the trial court suspended execution of sentence and
imposed a restitution fund fine. In the second and third cases, the trial court suspended
imposition of sentence and imposed a restitution fund fine and a probation revocation
fine. In September of 2013, the trial court revoked probation in all three cases and, in
each case, imposed an additional restitution fund fine of $300 and a parole revocation
fine of $300. Defendant Lisa Marie Preston raised a number of issues relative to the
imposition of these additional fines. We requested supplemental briefing on four
questions:
(1) Whether the trial court‘s failure to impose a parole revocation fine when
sentence was imposed and execution stayed in case Nos. SF091142A/12F5679
(case 1) was an unauthorized sentence.
(2) Whether the trial court was authorized to impose a parole revocation fine years
after it imposed the restitution fund fines in case Nos. SF112662A/12F5677
(case 2) and case Nos. SF117635A/12F5678 (case 3).
(3) Whether the trial court was authorized to impose both a probation revocation
fine and a parole revocation fine in cases 2 and 3.
(4) Whether the trial court erred in failing to lift the stays on the probation
revocation fines when it revoked defendant‘s probation in cases 2 and 3."
You can read the entire opinion for which $100/$300 fines were permissible, which were required, and which were impermissible.
Just remember that this whole thing is about fines that (1) may never in fact be paid -- or at least not paid with a real check (the defendant was repeatedly convicted of forgery); and (2) in any event are far smaller than the costs of prosecuting and resolving this appeal.
