Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Christopher Lee Wagner pleaded no contest in May 2025 to nine counts of committing a lewd or lascivious act on a child under 14, admitted aggravating factors, and admitted a special circumstance allegation concerning substantial sexual contact. The plea agreement provided a stipulated 24-year lid, left sentencing discretion to the trial court, and called for dismissal of the remaining charges. The court imposed 24 years in prison: the upper term of eight years on count 1 and consecutive two-year terms, one-third the midterm, on counts 2 through 9. It awarded 376 days of credit, ordered sex-offender registration, and issued a 10-year criminal protective order.
At sentencing, the court announced a $7,200 restitution fine under Penal Code section 1202.4, then said it would stay mandatory fines and fees while also imposing those that were mandatory. The abstract of judgment listed that restitution fine plus a $7,200 parole revocation fine, a $360 court operations assessment, a $270 criminal conviction assessment, and a $300 sex offender's fine. The trial court denied Wagner's request for a certificate of probable cause. Appointed appellate counsel then filed a Wende brief identifying no arguable issues and asking the Court of Appeal to review the record. Wagner was told he could file a supplemental brief within 30 days, but the court received no communication from him.
The Court’s Holding
The court's independent review identified one arguable sentencing problem: it could not determine which financial obligations the trial court intended to impose. A sentencing court must give a detailed recitation of all fines and assessments. Here, the oral pronouncement established the $7,200 restitution fine but coupled a statement staying mandatory fines and fees with a statement imposing mandatory obligations. The additional amounts in the abstract did not resolve that ambiguity because the record did not show which, if any, had been orally imposed.
Relying on People v. Mitchell and People v. Zackery, the court explained that an abstract of judgment is not the judgment itself, cannot add to or modify the oral judgment, and does not control when it differs from the oral pronouncement. The court therefore affirmed the convictions, reversed the sentence, and remanded for the trial court to impose sentence and state on the record the fines and assessments imposed. It found no other arguable error that would produce a disposition more favorable to Wagner. The trial court must prepare an amended abstract of judgment and forward a copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Key Takeaways
- A Wende review can uncover an arguable sentencing issue even when appointed counsel identifies none and the defendant files no supplemental brief.
- A trial court must recite the fines and assessments imposed at sentencing with enough detail to make the defendant's financial obligations clear.
- An abstract of judgment cannot supply or alter financial obligations that the trial court did not clearly impose in its oral pronouncement.
- The appellate court left the nine convictions intact but reversed the entire sentence and ordered resentencing and clarification of the financial orders.
- The remand also requires an amended abstract of judgment to be sent to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Why It Matters
The decision separates the validity of Wagner's convictions from the uncertainty surrounding his sentence. The prosecution's factual basis, plea, admissions, and 24-year prison term remain part of the affirmed conviction history, but the appellate court did not treat the abstract of judgment as a substitute for a clear oral sentencing pronouncement.
The remand is narrowly explained as a means of determining what the trial court actually imposed, not as authority for the abstract to add assessments on its own. The opinion identifies no other arguable error and does not resolve any additional appellate issue beyond the fines-and-assessments defect.