Is there any case law where a sentence for crime victim intimidation has been improperly increased or stayed pursuant to section 654 of the California Criminal Code?

The trial court should have doubled the sentence for the crime victim intimidation offense before correctly staying it pursuant to section 654. (See People v. Cantrell (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1164 [where prison term for current offense was subject to doubling and was also subject to stay under 654, court should have imposed the term, doubled it, and stayed it].) We may correct this unauthorized sentence. (Id. at p. 1165.)

Page 4

Further, our review of the record has discovered two mandatory fees that need to be increased and one fee that should not have been imposed. Failure to impose a mandatory fee results in an unauthorized sentence that may be corrected on appeal. (See People v. Voit (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1373.)

Here, the trial court should have imposed the court operations assessment fee and court facility fee on both offenses, even though it stayed the punishment for the witness intimidation offense, because those fees are not punishment. (See People v. Sencion (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 480, 484.)